In 2009 it was revealed that the ruling Labour Party had purposefully flooded Britain with several million immigrants, without consulting its citizens, in order to socially engineer a “truly Multicultural” country. The huge increases in migrants over the previous decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt to radically change the country and to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity,” according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair. He said mass immigration was the result of a deliberate plan, but ministers were reluctant to discuss this for fear that it would alienate the party’s “core working class vote.”

Lord Glasman — a personal friend of the Labour Party leader — in 2011 stated that “Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration… and there’s been a massive rupture of trust.” He admitted that the Labour Party had sometimes been actively hostile to the white natives. In particular, they tended to view white working-class voters as “an obstacle to progress.”

To my knowledge, these shocking revelations of a Western government virtually launching a full-front attack to crush its own people have so far not caused a single word of protest from political leaders or mass media in any other Western country, although these acts could be construed as a policy of state-sponsored ethnic cleansing targeting the white majority population. In my country’s mass media, these public admissions from Neather were hardly mentioned at all, although journalists never miss an opportunity to warn against the dangerous tide of “white racism and xenophobia” that is supposedly sweeping the Western world today.

I have since come to suspect that the reason for this shameful silence is that the authorities in all Western countries without exception themselves follow similar, deliberate policies of dispossessing Europeans and therefore see nothing wrong in what the British government did.

Also in Britain, immigrant gangs, especially Muslims, of sexual predators have exploited and abused hundreds of girls as young as 12 — usually white — who are plied with drink and drugs and then raped, abused and degraded. If the girls refused their advances they were threatened with hammers or thrown out of cars. Many such attacks were filmed by the men as “trophies.”

In November 2010, a teenage girl from Birmingham, England, was arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred after allegedly burning an English language version of the Koran. In Britain, if Muslims or other immigrant groups rape white girls, the police are often reluctant to do anything about it because they don’t want to be perceived as “racists,” but if native girls, who are being actively displaced and driven out of their homeland by the authorities, do anything that might upset the feelings of Muslim immigrants they get arrested immediately.

In June 2007, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, along with Chancellor (and PM-in-waiting) Gordon Brown and Conservative Party leader (also future PM) David Cameron, met Muslim leaders at a conference organized by the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme. Blair opened by defending Islam as a religion of “moderation and modernity,” announced a government fund to aid teaching of Islam and to train imams and designated Islamic studies as “strategically important” to the British national interest. Timothy Winter, a lecturer in Islamic Studies at the University of Cambridge, said that “The question facing British society, and society as a whole, is not how we encourage minorities to engage with western countries, but how those countries define themselves as a collage of different religious cultures.”

In other words: Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Ireland, Spain and other Western countries with white majorities are no longer nations with a distinct heritage, only random spaces on the map just waiting to be filled with a “collage of different cultures.”

I could add here that North American authorities and mass media are little better than Western European ones, and sometimes worse. The USA was the first Western country, in 1965, to open its borders to mass immigration from the entire world as a matter of ideological principle. US authorities have been promoting similar policies elsewhere in the West ever since. The concepts of “white privilege” and “Whiteness Studies” were also developed in and spread from the USA. In conflicts between native Europeans and non-native colonizers, US authorities have repeatedly shown that they will go against the interests of native Europeans.

The more I look into the matter, the more I have to wonder whether the USA today has become the Anti-White Empire. If we make a list of groups or institutions that are promoting the dispossession and destruction of Europeans it would look something like this, starting from the top down:

1.

The Unites States Government.

2.

The European Union.

3.

Muslims.

4.

The anti-white Leftists controlling Western academia and mass media.

5.

Multinational corporations and their lobbyists plus a business class hungry for open borders with unrestricted access to global markets and cheap labor.

6.

The anti-white bias and genetic Communism aggressively promoted by Hollywood and the American entertainment industry.

3, 4 and 5 are common to the entire Western world. Number 2 is exclusive to Europe, whereas number 1 and 6 are specifically North American, and both of these affect the rest of the Western world to a very substantial degree. Simple mathematics thus indicates that the USA is at least as much to blame for the now-ongoing ethnic cleansing of whites as is the EUSSR.

I read essays by the “America Alone” crowd represented by Mark Steyn. Europe faces very serious problems, but so does North America, and it’s not immediately clear who is worse off. Western Europe will probably burn because of Multiculturalism and mass immigration, but so will the USA. If we look at the transition to a non-white majority rather than Islamization, the USA is further down that line than the worst-affected areas in Europe, like France or England.

I started out writing about Islam, and I still stand by every statement I have ever made about Islam and Muslims. Yes, the Islamic creed by itself is inherently violent. No, it cannot be reformed, and Islam in any way, shape or form does not belong in the West. Islam, and all those who practice it, must be totally and physically removed from the entire Western world.

The Chinese are different from us. I don’t want my country swamped by them because that would spell the end of my nation, but at least they don’t have a religion saying that it is a God-given right for them to wipe out my culture and massacre my people. Muslims do. They clearly top the list of violently hostile peoples who do not belong in Western lands.

Nevertheless, as much as I loathe Islam it is merely a secondary infection. It would not be able to threaten us the way it does now had it not been for the aggressive cultural AIDS breaking down our immune system beforehand. The real mental virus that is killing the white West today is the post-Enlightenment construct we call the Idea Nation or Proposition Nation.

The two Western countries most historically responsible for developing and spreading this doctrine are the USA and France. It makes sense that these very same countries are also currently at the forefront of Western demographic decline. The Idea Nation concept stipulates that every single country, or at least every single Western country, is nothing but a random space on the map, an empty bowl just waiting to be filled with shopping and human rights.

The American proponents of this concept tend to focus more on the former aspect whereas the French, and the French-inspired organization known as European Union, emphasize the latter somewhat more. That is also the major difference between the two. The love-hate relationship between the Americans and the French tends to obscure how much their countries have in common. In both of them, the country has transformed itself into a Multicultural Disneyland where the white majority is being stripped off its rights, its identity and ultimately perhaps its very existence, all with the blessings of the state. The end result is remarkably similar in both cases: The dispossession of whites and the organized destruction of European culture.

Since January 2010, France has been engaged in a “debate” on national identity which has evolved into an exercise in government-sponsored propaganda calculated to remind white Frenchmen that they are nothing. Minister of Immigration and National Identity Eric Besson in talks on “national identity” chose to debate national identity mainly with men of North African origin. He stated that “there is only a France where the blood is mixed,” thereby erasing the existence of a distinct French nation. For Besson, “France is neither a people, nor a language, nor a territory, nor a religion; it is a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together. There is no ethnic Frenchman; there is only an ethnically mixed France.”

The French novelist Jean Raspail, author of The Camp of the Saints, thinks that the state has become the enemy of the nation in most Western countries and warns that “All of Europe marches to its death” because of a shared fallacy: the Idea Nation. He fears that the ruin of his people by those who welcomed or refused to resist the ongoing invasion is nearly irreversible:

“I am convinced that the fate of France is sealed, because ‘My house is their house’ (Mitterand), inside ‘Europe whose roots are as much Muslim as Christian’ (Chirac), because the situation is moving irreversibly towards the final swing in 2050 which will see French stock amounting to only half the population of the country, the remainder comprising Africans, Moors and Asians of all sorts from the inexhaustible reserve of the Third World.”

In his essay The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic from 2004, Raspail shows how the Open Borders lobby confuses the French nation, which comprises a distinct ethnic group of European blood, with the French Republic. France was from the outset a country of common blood, but in recent years “the Republic, which is only one shape of government, is synonymous for them with ideology, ideology with a capital ‘I’, the major ideology.”

The American and French models are “different” in the same way as the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks were “different.” Whereas the former argue about the most efficient way to implement genetic Communism, the latter argued passionately over how to best implement economic Communism. Heated debate between sects over minor ideological differences is a Western specialty that could successfully be viewed as a secularization of older Christian practices. This should not, however, obscure how much these various sects have in common.

The USA and France have both come to define themselves as “universal Republics” and are currently in the process of committing suicide because of this. Virtually the entire political Left as well as the “respectable” establishment Right throughout the Western world have fully accepted the Idea Nation as the ideal and agree on 90-95% of the goals. The so-called political debate we see on the newspapers and on the TV screens merely addresses the remaining details of how a Multicultural society should be implemented or what the New Man should look like. It is an insane ideological beauty contest on how best to dismantle the white West.

For example, there is a transatlantic “debate” of sorts regarding the best manner to integrate Somali Muslims: How much welfare state gives the best result? Should they learn their own language in school? The continued mass immigration and colonization of Western lands by alien ethnic groups is already implied and treated as given. Practically nobody asks whether Somali Muslims are inherently so different from Europeans culturally and yes, genetically speaking that perhaps they don’t belong in Western countries at all. Maybe there simply is no Swedish, Dutch, German, Swiss, Italian, British, French, Canadian, American or Australian way to absorb such alien nations because the mental differences are just too great to bridge.

Asking such questions will immediately get you excluded from polite society if not physically attacked. This is because you challenge the very basis of the Idea Nation and by extension the foundations of the ruling ideology. This will be seen as a betrayal by those who are in power.

In addition to the USA and the EU, the twin Enlightenment Empires, we also have some junior partners in this process. Sweden, for instance, with its famous welfare state has created an international image for itself as a “model nation.” As a result, loyalty is no longer expressed to the Swedish nation as a biological reality, since this has been ideologically abolished and historically erased. Instead, loyalty is expected and expressed to the ideals the state is supposed to uphold, in Sweden’s case Socialism and anti-white Multiculturalism.

In older times, a “traitor” was someone who betrayed his nation. In this context, a nation was a people who saw themselves as a distinct entity and ethnic group, complete with visual symbols like flags. Today, this viewpoint is considered obsolete by the ruling Western oligarchs, an ancient evil that must be ridiculed and stamped out at all costs, including use of indoctrination in the education system and the mass media coupled with legal intimidation and professional harassment of dissenters who dare to adhere to traditional ties of loyalty.

A person who demonizes his culture and promotes the colonization of his country by other, even openly hostile peoples, is no longer considered a traitor, as he previously would have been. On the contrary, he is applauded by those in prominent positions in politics, academia and the mass media. The person who is treated as a traitor is anyone who shows any signs of loyalty to traditional nations that constitute hated rivals of enlightened universalism. For this reason, parties such as the Sweden Democrats have been harassed for years, not because they betray the people who historically inhabited their country, but precisely because they don’t.

The English traditionalist philosopher Roger Scruton has noted that “buying and selling of citizenship, often to people who think of it purely as a right and never as a duty, is common throughout Europe. The political élite sees nothing wrong in people collecting passports as they might collect memberships of clubs.” He thinks that members of the ruling Western élite are immune to xenophobia, the fear and hatred of foreigners, but at the same time suffer from a severe case of what Scruton calls oikophobia, the repudiation and fear of home, the urge to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions of your own people. “The oikophobe is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of oikophobia that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe.”

The native peoples of Europe are now deeply anxious about their future, often with very good reason as their lands are being flooded with outsiders and they are being turned into strangers in their own cities. When people are in a state of anxiety they may pose a threat, both to themselves and to those whom they fear. Roger Scruton warns that if the ruling Multicultural elites will not discuss these matters and continue to put all blame for the growing tensions on the xenophobia of the indigenous population while ignoring the oikophobia which is a major contributing factor, a likely long-term effect of this situation could be a popular explosion.

Treason in a nation-state meant disloyalty to the heritage, freedom and continued existence of the distinct nation or ethnic group who traditionally inhabited that country’s territory. Treason in an ideological state or Idea Nation means disloyalty to the ideals upheld by the state. The practical consequences of these different outlooks are huge. Judged according to the former definition, it is no exaggeration to say that the governments of every single member-state of the European Union, and indeed all Western countries, commit treason every single day.

Is that statement too harsh? Considering the fact that the white majority population that has shaped these countries and created successful societies there is being purposefully displaced by mass immigration sanctioned by the ruling elites, the answer to that question is no. Yet none of these governments have so far been charged with treason. Why not? Because the courts, as well as the laws and legal definitions upheld by the court system, are controlled by Globalist groups who adhere to the Idea Nation and uphold the latter definition of treason.

Europeans have fought, and paid with large amounts of blood, for over 1300 years to keep Islam out of the Continent. The European Union is now actively promoting stronger cultural, economic, legal and demographic ties between Europe and the Islamic world and is clamping down on any opposition to this policy among native Europeans as “racism and Islamophobia.”

In accordance with traditional values this would have to be considered one of the greatest betrayals in the history of European civilization, but not a single leading individual associated with these policies has so far suffered substantial harassment for participating in this. On the contrary, in this age of anti-European agitation and Western self-destruction, treason can make for a lucrative career path with few if any dangers or negative side-effects attached to it.

The only ones who have to fear for their reputation, freedom and lives in Europe today are not those who want to allow continued colonization of their Continent but rather those who resist this development, such as Geert Wilders, who stands trial for defending his nation’s freedom.

An alternative view vis-à-vis the Idea Nation, and frankly, the only one that makes sense in light of human history and biological realities, is that a nation consists of a group of genetically related people with shared historical experiences, a roughly similar outlook and cultural background as well as emotional ties to their ancestors and to the land they live on.

As Sam Francis reminded us, “every real nation is a country of a common blood. The only nations that claim to be defined by creeds are — come to think of it — totalitarian states. The Soviet Union, a 20th century descendant of the French Revolution, really was a credal nation, and it survived only because it rested on the same Terror that reigned in France. When the common blood dries up and the civilization founded on it withers, all that’s left is the state.”

Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis. After the Second World War, any talk of genetic differences, of being related by blood or of ties to the soil you live on became associated with Nazism and therefore seen as evil. Out of the many things the Nazis destroyed, this was one of the most damaging, but perhaps least appreciated today. I would be tempted to declare the Nazis the most anti-white movement that ever existed, considering the incalculable damage they did to Europeans and people of European origins.

The main reason why we are threatened by outside forces today is because of the notion that our countries should be glorified shopping centers where anybody should be free to enter as they desire. As long as this situation continues, we will never be able to defeat our enemies

Our primary enemy is the Proposition Nation, not Islam. The only way to restore sanity to our countries is to restore the concept that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage. Unfortunately, those who champion the Idea Nation concept have become so deeply entrenched in positions of power throughout the Western world that this struggle has the potential to trigger a pan-Western civil war, or a Multicultural world war.

Yesterday, I came to the study of Islam through my recognition and study of the New World Order which is simply using Islam to inflict spiritual, intellectual, and physical mayhem on free peoples.

Today, I am most worried about the Chinese who are being invited to put hundreds of military bases and foreign military personnel within the borders of the United States.

Tomorrow, I will be concerned about Communist China falling to Islam in the same way that Russia is poised to fall to a Muslim majority.

In eternity, let it be remembered that a nation based on a creed did succeed as long as that creed was followed in thought and word and deed. The nation is the United States of America following the creed of Christianity.

The conquering of America, really the entire world, is by Satan and is wholly due to the dispossession and destruction of Christianity and Christian peoples.

To those who would insouciantly claim that Christianity caused this multicultural mess, I would argue that the United States of America and the rest of the West abandoned Christian ideals and actions long before the mass importation of openly hostile non-Christians, be they Arab Muslim or native Chinese.

As far as mixing genetics, China has artificially created a surplus of men, and I heard a pundit on TV say, in regards to China, that WAR often commences when men lack women.

I suppose that our white American daughters are to be an unwilling export to China: the brides of China if they are lucky - the prostitutes of China if not.

In replace of the idea state there needs to be the "genocide prevention state" (which used to be what all countries were). The genocide prevention state has as its function the preservation of an ethnic group through the establishment of borders and self-rule.

As to immigration in Europe, see this video where a Jewess Barbara Lerner Spectre, who runs a government-funded Jewish study group in Sweden, makes the following remarkable statement:

Quote:

“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we [the Jews] are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.”

"Due to a politically motivated attempt to radically change the country and to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity,”

You don't say!

Egghead said... "Tomorrow, I will be concerned about Communist China falling to Islam in the same way that Russia is poised to fall to a Muslim majority."

I agree with your worries of Yesterday and Today. Not so worried about Communist China of the future.

China has a very very long cultural history. Islam won't put much of a dent in it before China squishes them. China isn't going to give up thousands of years of culture for something as shallow as Islam.

What they might do, however, is develop a truce between them. Once Islam realizes they can't openly defeat China they will seek some kind of alliance.

Superb essay, Fjordman. I'm going to have to echo TC though, and ask when will you start writing about the cure? How do you envision a way out of this mess? What should ordinary people do to try and stop the Third World invasion and conquest of the West? Does anyone have a realistic plan to preserve at least some white-majority nations?

Chechar makes a valid point as well. With a huge black underclass, a 2000 mile-long border with Mexico, and a hostile Jewish elite, it's amazing that the US has survived this long as a white-majority, First World nation. Not for much longer, alas. Can we convert the majority of Jews to an immigration-restriction platform? Or are they implacably opposed to the survival of any white nation anywhere? And how could that eventuality possibly benefit them?

The way things are going now, I would bet on Uruguay being the last surviving white-majority nation outside of Europe. Inside Europe, I would bet on Belarus. Long live Lukashenko!

jeppo said...Chechar makes a valid point as well. With a huge black underclass, a 2000 mile-long border with Mexico, and a hostile Jewish elite, it's amazing that the US has survived this long as a white-majority, First World nation. Not for much longer, alas. Can we convert the majority of Jews to an immigration-restriction platform?

You are correct to talk about a hostile Jewish elite. According to a study conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies, Religious Leaders vs. Members: An Examination of Contrasting Views on Immigration, while Jews in general are significantly more pro-immigration than Christian sects, roughly half still think that the United States accepts too many immigrants. Despite the divided nature of the Jewish community in general though, major organizations that presume to represent the interests of the Jewish people such as the Anti-Defamation League are intent on demonizing anyone and any organization that wants to restrict immigration, this includes those that show no sign of anti-semitism or even those that are explicitly philo-semitic.

They are just as hostile to groups like the Federation for Immigration Reform, American Renaissance, Youth For Western Civilization, etc as they are to any Nazi skinheads, even though they aren't hostile to Jews and often have Jewish members and contributors. One would think they would be happy if those of a nationalist political orientation would distance themselves from anti-semitism, but it appears that groups like the ADL think it is in the interests of the Jewish people that even philo-semitic nationalists are expelled from polite discourse.

I have to dissent. The idea nation is only bad because of the idea. France could be an idea nation if the idea were total integration, including rejection of Islam. Integrating non-Muslims in France is actually very successful. Furthermore, by Fjordman's reckoning the US would have to cease to exist, because it can't be an ethnic nation like European countries could.

Reading essays like this one, and those of El Ingles, and perhaps the majority of commenters here on this and other related articles, makes me feel like the Sean Connery character during those last agonizing moments of chaotic devolution in the Sidney Lumet film The Hill (1965).

It is really high times to speak more about the enemies within, rather than the enemies without, and to focus polemical activity more on the internal ones. The soi-disant defender of Aryans whose post precedes mine in this forum is correct in pointing out the disproportional Jewish contribution to the population replacement syndrome. If he knew more, he could have also pointed out an even greater Jewish contribution to the disproportional favoritization and barbarization of the black and brown segments of America’s population. That has been even more damaging than dystopian immigration either in Europe or in the U.S., for it has brought not only the common-to-both-continents chaos and criminality at the bottom, but also the admission of a large number of tribally-oriented and unqualified “people of color” into positions of the highest power.

The reason people like Fjordman, the Baron and Dymphna, myself and others cannot write more about the Jewish contribution to our destruction is precisely because of those who do, like the comrade above. Their lying about Hitler, Holocaust denial, hobnobbing with Ustashniks and Neo-nazis, obscurantism about the horrors of the Romanovs’ rule that engendered the Bolshevik Revolution (and Jewish participation therein), puts anyone who writes critically about their grand idee-fixe -- Der Juden – in a radioactive chamber, and anyone who cares about truth in the camp of untruth.

The antisemites sabotage the task of saving and boosting the Peoples of Europe (and her diaspora) in two more ways. First, by misunderstanding and misrepresenting the Jews’ motivation in their dysfunctional behavior, they muddle the issue and make it far more difficult to mount effective countermeasures. To be brief, the most accurate – and most bitingly damaging -- statement about the Jewish dysfunction was made not by Duke or MacDonald, but rather by a Jewish comedienne, Julia Gorin, and in direct negation of their and Hitler’s spurious theorizing.

Gorin said, speaking as though on behalf of America’s Jewry [quoting from memory]:

“Now when a black man is in the White House, our work is done. It’s okay for the Muslims to come now and kill us.”

Second, by focusing exclusively on the Jews, the antisemites obscure the even greater damage done by the Christians – and for exactly the same demented reasons as the Jews’. It’s an issue that far fewer write about than write about the Jews. It would take two pages to list just the most recent news items documenting this terrible plague, but I’ll suggest just a few:

1. Try any random G.W.Bush speech, especially if written by Michael Gerson;

2. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=302981

3. Google “White Privilege” and Protestant seminaries like Augustana College or those that participate in the “Chicago Semester”;

4. Check the course offerings and syllabus at Yale Divinity School and other major seminaries.

I don't agree with this article, and most of Fjordman's articles. And I think people like him are holding back our 'real' debate, which is what is happening on an ideological level, and can only be fought there. I wonder how Fjordman would classify 'non white' people like Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan etc? How about the people from the south of france, Italy and Spain? "Impure genetics"? I'm sorry, but this is where the GOV blog falls down. I think, if anything, it is this same 'elitism' that the 'white-pure' rhetoric derives, that serves Islam and muslims are childish 'inferiors', incapable of dealing with free speech and western values.

I'd like to invite Fjordman over to Australia where he can see that multiculturalism works well here. Aussies don't put up with the same Islamic crap that other countries do, because they have been traditionally anti-elitist egalitarian, 'fair go' people.

"The reason people like Fjordman, the Baron and Dymphna, myself and others cannot write more about the Jewish contribution to our destruction is precisely because of those who do ..."

I know that in your heart you only seek for the truth. We all know you and your intellectual integrity well enough to NOT confuse you with those bad anti-semites who give honest intellectuals a bad name.

Therefore I'd be more than curious to read your very personal interpretation of "the Jewish contribution to our destruction".

I agree. This is definitely one of the best Fjordman essays yet, and there have been many great ones!

Proposition nations are doomed to fail because the concept doesn't take into account biology and that humans are biological creatures with natural instincts to preserve and promote their own genes (which they share with relatives, including distant ones like their fellow members of their own ethnic group).

Without this very, very basic understanding, political endeavors based on wishful thinking of human nature -- like Proposition Nations or Communism or Libertarianism -- are bound to simply blow up when the members begin to squabble over ethnic issues.

It is for this very reason (i.e. that different ethnic groups will always be in conflict) that many people point to Jews as part of the problem. Whether they are or not is practically irrelevant. The point is, Ashkenazi Jews in the West are a separate ethnic group from other European ethnic groups. One that immigrated into Europe from the Middle East (much as Muslims are doing today) not even two millennia ago.

And the problem is, they never fully integrated -- genetically, I mean. Yes, there was some amount of inter-marriage between Jews and Europeans, but it was not 100%. If it had been, we wouldn't be talking about Jews as a group at all. But they're still a separate group, ergo we talk about them as such. And, so, many people cast a suspicious eye on them for the very reason that they are a different, ethnic, genetic group.

This is very, very basic biology. You need only watch a few nature documentaries on television to grasp the concept.

TC,But I have interpreted it on several occasions, notably at Jewish-centered articles at GoV (see leftmost column), and as part of larger themes in “From Meccania to Atlantis” at The Brussels Journal. I have also done it in a more narrative form, in a DTO British journal, re-issued on the Web here: http://www.washingtonreb.com/category/takuan-seiyo/ Look for "Coffee with Rosa."

Whether anyone thinks me a Nazi is of no concern to me, just as it isn’t if anyone thinks that I am a Jewish mole carrying out the nefarious plot against the Goyim [they think so even of Jared Taylor, who is referred to at VNN as Shmuel Jerry Taylor with a Jewish wife, natch].

I have to dissent. The idea nation is only bad because of the idea. France could be an idea nation if the idea were total integration, including rejection of Islam. Integrating non-Muslims in France is actually very successful. Furthermore, by Fjordman's reckoning the US would have to cease to exist, because it can't be an ethnic nation like European countries could."___________________________________

Why nations~ who generally look down on America~ want to emulate its most dangerous experiment- the melting pot all all peoples into one- is curious.

America is the only land that needed to try this risky path of melding disparate populations.

Other lands should have remained what they were: individual nations composed of unique, generally-homogenous peoples.

Who, if they got tired of this unity, could emigrate to America and try the grand gamble to see if diverse peoples could peacefully unite under an Idea, and forge a stronger alloy than the original elements.

A great Idea, true, but not one that everyone can adapt to.

And one being destroyed by the illegal alien floods tolerated by power-seeking political pimps who consider the Constitution to be a Revolutionary form of toilet paper.

Fjordman's racial concerns are tactically and technically irrelevent.

We are all one Race.

Human.

The Ideas we embody are what make us either Enlightened or Barbaric. Liberated or Tyrannical.

The "Idea" Nation should be rephrased as "The Fantasy" State versus "The Realism" State..

Because all nations are essentially an "Idea", as ethnicity and race are ideas (conceptual subdivisions of our one species), it is the worth of the Idea that matters.

The Bad Idea State can be dangerous to the survival of its existing citizens. The Bad Idea being: multiculturalism/ moral relativism / anti-colonialism/ suicidal self-loathing/ Rousseau-ian naivete about the scope and cruelty and non-innocence of [human] nature.

We are deadly predators before we are anything, and the folly of inviting in- unexamined and unskeptically- hordes of unknown peoples and then pretending that they can blithely adapt to any culture, any level of technology, any legal system and any stage of civilization - this is the true Bad Idea. The fundamental Fantasy.

And lambasting this lunacy is the duty of all free peoples who wish to survive the onslaught of this chaotic regression which our political "betters" have decided to foist on the West.

Out of self-annihilating naivete about the rapacious reality of existence.

That hard reality which their effete, pampered and sequestered educations (and lives) never exposed them to.

Nor had a chance to disillusion them from their cushy, Cloud Cuckooland/communalist ideology.

The one that washed their brains in the sitz bath of socialistic sillinesss and whose mantras of "everyone is the same / everyone wants the same thing / everyone is basically good" has been brutally disproven everywhere it has been forcibly installed by the State.

The Bad Idea must be countered by the Better Idea.

And aim for the Great Idea: a free people ~defending their historical and cultural and intellectual and spiritual achievements, securing their lands against threats, and striving for the promise of the stars.

The issue is not what "white" really is; nor what "white" means to defenders of the concept.

What matters is what "white" (and its implicit, often explict obverse, "non-white") means to the dominant and mainstream PC MC throughout the West.

What it means to PC MC involves a complex paradigm, but that doesn't mean it's coherent. The main problem with that paradigm is two-fold:

1) it's anti-Western (where "white" is synecdochal for "Western" -- even though the PC MC in question may claim to be pro-Western through his or her liberalism -- there's one of the incoherencies)

2) it's pro-Islam (because wired into the paradigm is an anti-racism anxious to defend all perceived "ethnic peoples" from the "whites" who are assumed, by history and by present potential, to have an innate bigotry and racism against the "ethnics", a bigotry and racism that must be constantly nipped in the bud, through cultural pressure and through laws) (see * at bottom).

Along come Muslims -- perceived as "ethnic" -- and because they make the most noise and do the most violence, they are respected the most by PC MC.

Now, those in the AIM (the Anti-Islam Movement) who fixate on "white" vs. "non-white" are, in my estimation, only exacerbating and, simultaneously, muddling the damage this PC MC paradigm exerts on the public discussion.

But, since apparently some (or most) of the Anti-Elite AIMers never thought that Islam was the main problem anyway, who am I to think I can remind them to back off from the "real" problem "behind" the problem of Islam?

* The widespread culture of shame and guilt about aborigines among white Australians is relatively new -- it really picked up steam beginning in the 1980s -- and it is DIRECTLY related to the problem of PC MC as it impairs our judgment to condemn Muslims. While Australia has occasionally shown some moxy against Muslims, it has also shown signs of PC MC on the issue. Australia may be better than, say, Sweden or the UK on the matter, but it is not immune to the PC MC reflex that feels it must accommodate Muslims. They day I see Australia (or any other Western nation) actually expel all Muslims from its borders -- then I will conclude they have finally grown up.

This is indeed an excellent article by Fjordman. The distinction I wish to make relative to “whiteness” issues raised by you is this:

Australia (and US, Canada etc) have never been white countries proper. Whites have acted as invaders and colonizers. Unfortunately, they feel guilty about it to this day, which they shouldn’t for every nation on earth exists as a result of conquest, colonization and often, genocide. On the other hand, Europe has always been a white continent. What Fjordman writes applies 100% to Europe, but does not – except in modified form – apply to the diaspora Anglosphere.

The issue whether the Jews, the Armenians, the Gypsies are separate ethnic group is irrelevant. What matters is that they have been in Europe for thousands of years, and there have been few of them. And, in the case of the Jews at least, involuntarily, for they were brought there mainly as Roman slaves after the crushing of the two Judean revolts at the beginning of the 1st millennium.

So the way to deal with such ethnic minorities is to say, look , we have this standard, people are punished by law or social ostracism if they don’t adhere to this standard, and so will you if you persist in your separate ways. That is, BTW, the only possible way to deal even with indigenous minorities in the Anglosphere. What you cannot do is start talking about such minorities as “non-whites” who don’t belong where they are: they do, by virtue of a very long presence.

But that is not what Fjordman is writing about anyway. He is writing about a massive population replacement that is happening now, for no good reason, and not about small influxes of non-European peoples that happened 2000 years ago and are irreversible (except the Hitler way).

The issue is not what "white" really is; nor what "white" means to defenders of the concept.

But why argue for an idea that can't even be defined?!

Noone has so far been able to tell me if Spencer, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan and even Wilders are "white"? (Geert is part Indonesian and would look 'ethnic' if he didn't dye his hair). I have lots of Italian and Greek friends who turn black as soon as they go out in the sun; are they white or black people? Genetically pure or impure? This 'white' rhetoric is so absurd.

As for Australia, the majority here does NOT walk around feeling guilty over what past generations did. I did 3 units during my degree on Aboriginal culture and literature, and was never made to feel "guilty". On the contrary it was very enriching.

And as for muslims coming here illegally by boat, Australia is pretty certain to become the first to start deporting them to Malaysian camps, while taking in some 'real' refugees who are in camps there already. They are mostly Burmese Christians, and very good hard working people.

Takuan said: "The issue whether the Jews, the Armenians, the Gypsies are separate ethnic group is irrelevant."

No, it is not irrelevant. It is exactly on point for the reasons I have stated.

Fjordman wrote about how our primary enemy is the Proposition Nation. I heartily agree. Such a nation will never work because of the reasons I have given.

Takuan said: "What matters is that they have been in Europe for thousands of years, and there have been few of them."

That doesn't matter at all, I'm afraid, if they haven't been assimilated genetically.

This is not anything personal and you shouldn't take it that way. I am trying to be helpful by explaining why Proposition Nations will never work and, in addition, trying to explain why the question of Jewish involvement in the destruction of the West (or whatever you want to call it) repeatedly comes up.

I'm not blaming Jews, here. I'm just trying to explain why they will inevitably get blamed -- and that's because they are, genetically, a foreign group. This happens everywhere there is a foreign group. Germans will be blamed for problems if they're settled in some other group's territory (think Hungary), Russians will get blamed if they're settled in someone else's territory (Baltic nations), and so on and so on. The Chinese get blamed in Malaysia. Koreans in Japan. This is just how it is.

Takuan said: "And, in the case of the Jews at least, involuntarily, for they were brought there mainly as Roman slaves after the crushing of the two Judean revolts at the beginning of the 1st millennium."

Yes, and no. This is fudging the truth a little bit. Jews obviously also migrated throughout Europe after the Roman Empire collapsed. It was not the Romans who brought Jews into Germany or Poland or Russia.

Takuan said: "What you cannot do is start talking about such minorities as 'non-whites' who don’t belong where they are: they do, by virtue of a very long presence.

I'm not talking at all about "non-White" who don't belong where they are. I'm just talking about different ethnicities who, due to historical circumstance, happen to live together. The problem is, THAT will never work for the biological reasons I have outlined.

Takuan said: "...and not about small influxes of non-European peoples that happened 2000 years ago and are irreversible (except the Hitler way)."

I never suggested that these influxes are reversable or should be reversed -- in any way -- and especially not in Hitler's way.

Again, I am just trying to explain why things don't work the way we want them and why unrelated groups often get blamed when things are not going right.

Without a full grasp of the real underlying problems, we'll never be able to work things out to everyone's benefit. History will just repeat itself, which is the LAST thing I would want.

This is an important essay. I'd like to point out that the Jewish Problem, and it is a problem, can be solved by understanding that Jews themselves are very divided on every issue, and the people and groups who represent Jews, actually don't. The Jewish establishment purges every ethnic Jew who doesn't fit their agenda. They define what it is to be a Jew, and declare that others aren't. So when a Jew makes an anti-white statement, it's impossible that they represent the Jewish position, because so many of the rest of us ethnic Jews aren't even recognised as Jews by other Jewish groups and individuals.

I think part of the solution would be to encourage all Jews, of whatever religious or political persuasion, to think of themselves as an ethnic group, and to desire a Jewish state free from outside interference and also free from domination by Orthodox religious authorities on the one hand, and leftist/universalists on the other hand. Israel lost its way from the beginning, because the Zionist founders, who were secular, allowed the Orthodox to weaken the racial aspect of Zionism, and emphasize the religious aspect, which has never, ever fit Zionism.

It's very hard for someone like me to make my case to the other Jews. They seem to be so damaged as to be closed to reason. So, I don't know exactly how to bell this cat, but I understand the issues completely.

Regarding who is white: whiteness can be defined any way you want, and it can change, depending on the context. Some hard-core white nationalists only recognise Nordics as really white, but I recognise all the people you mentioned as white, because they're sort of Mediterranean, definitely Caucasian, and explicitly on the side of the West. Whiteness is an art rather than a science.

As for how to "process" ethnic groups like Armenians, Gypsies...I don't think they should be required to assimilate, in every case. That's genocide. These people have been ethnicities for a long time, and why say to some people, you have to forget your ancestors and pretend to be someone else. The only reason is that these groups have no land. Maybe the solution is to give them some land, in exchange for giving up their citizenship in the lands they live in currently.

To blame someone for having the integrity to hold on to their memory of who they are, and demand they "assimilate," is actually a mind virus left over from the proposition nation.

@Eileen O'ConnorThe ethnicity issue you raise remains true but irrelevant with respect to finding a "solution." Of course a fairly cohesive group that differs from the surrounding population will be a subject to bigotry. But since the groups we are discussing have been where they are for a very long time --even the Koreans very brought to Japan involuntarily in the 17th century -- the issue is not whether they are different but whether the bigotry is justified. In some cases, in some categories, it is; in others, it is not. So the task is not to do what the modern Western state is doing -- prohibit and punish spuriously misdefined "racism" -- and not what White Supremacists are doing -- heap all possible blame on the "non-whites" -- but to separate wheat from chaff and deal with truthfully apprehended dysfunctions rather than paranoid taboos or psychopathic sectarianism.

The credit you give to the HBD view of human affairs may be partially justified, but only that. The Jews in particular have been genetically assimilated to an astonishing degree: think Gwyneth Paltrow, Leelee Sobieski (yes, that Sobieski), Scarlett Johansson, Courtney Love, the Gyllenhall siblings, James Franco, Matthew Broderick, Daniel Day Lewis, on and on and on. It's culturally that they have not been assimilated. And that is so because we -- particularly the Anglo-Saxons and Nordics, have not been assertive and appreciative enough of our culture.

Your argument about the Jews spreading in Europe is disingenuous. If memory serves, Rome extended from Spain to Romania, was conquered by Germany (to oversimplify things), and was eventually supplanted by the Holy Roman Empire-- that included Central Europe. Jews came to Poland by invitation and under the protection of successive kings, just as Germans would later (and in Bohemia, Moravia, Transylvania etc. too). And they didn't spread to Russia: it was Russia that spread to them, after it grabbed one third of Poland in late 18th century.

A post-script to my acceptance of some dark-looking people as white: this can only be done retail, not wholesale.

For instance, the Russian poet Pushkin's father was a black African, but he was so outstanding, he was welcome in Russia, and Pushkin, while techically of mixed race, was an ethnic Russian, only because he was part white and acted completely Russian.

If, at that time, there had been mass African immigration into Russia, and I'd been around, I would have said, Pushkin is Russian, but the mulatto rap musicians are African and should leave.

That's why "assimilation" is such a complex issue nowadays. When immigration was rare, the outstanding foreigner could be adopted with no problems. Now, with more and lower quality foreigners, some can be regarded as white, or Western, or whatever, and some can't.

Blogger - I think the simplest way to define "white" in our sense is as those who uphold the principles and foundations of the West, which is generally to say devout Christians (of the Church Militant variety), Jewish patriots (for Israel, and by extension for other nations), and those who are great fans of the Graeco-Roman works and concepts that are still with us today.

A non-white is someone who rejects the West, decrying the influence of any one (though more often all four, with a preference for bashing Christians and Jews and their religious practices and implications).

Thus, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and all the rest are classified as "white". Ethnically, of course they're not all white. It's the culture that is the most important thing here.

However, cultures are associated with ethnic identities. One doesn't expect a blue-eyed, blonde-haired Swede to act like an Italian or a Greek (Mama mia!), and nor could one expect a long-faced English aristocrat to match a Russian Boyar in a drinking contest (plus the polka).

Culture and ethnicity are ultimately linked, and while it is possible to belong to a civilisation without being of its core ethnicity, such an occurence en masse is wishful thinking (which is what the idea nation now presents).

I think a part of the problem here is that the underlying reasons for forming governments have been forgotten and neglected. That such foundational logic is neglected means that there is a massive disconnect between government and people, to the point where governments lose touch with the people they ostensibly represent, and thus do things detrimental (i.e treasonous) to those they are supposed to represent.

Also, it represents a triumph of ideology over practicality. So many programmes are started out of high ideals, and yet fail to do anything more than waste money. And then, what of the ideology of compromise? Combined with the above, it means that no one is satisfied by the agreement (as each ideology compromised on supposedly "core" principles) and is still quite impractical.

I guess it's a matter of principles and convictions. Who here has the courage of their convictions? And who then will ask such courage of others, even of those we would otherwise disagree wih?

You are going to find out really fast who is white - and who is not - when the majority of any PC MC indoctrinated nation is non-white - at which point, the non-whites who have been conditioned to hate and blame whites for all problems will violently hurt and/or murder as many white people as they want. Sad, but true....

Three different stages of white genocide are readily observable in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, South Africa, and inner city America.

"Flash mobs are not unique to Philadelphia, but they have been more frequent here than elsewhere. Others that resulted in arrests and injuries have been reported over the past year in Boston, South Orange, N.J., and Brooklyn."

"Once places of affordable, innocent entertainment for American families, they have now degenerated into holding pens for feral minorities who can’t keep themselves from cursing, molesting, or simply attacking each other or anyone else that gets in their way."

None of the violent black mobs in America or foreign countries took even a moment to question the whiteness of their victims. When non-whites intend to hurt and/or murder whites, looking white is being white.

So, truly, it is non-whites who define what it means to be white - based on white appearance, location, and activity.

The National Policy Institute (NPI) News section offers a good selection of current news articles covering issues that affect the white race.

Takuan said: "The ethnicity issue you raise remains true but irrelevant with respect to finding a 'solution.' Of course a fairly cohesive group that differs from the surrounding population will be a subject to bigotry. ...the issue is not whether they are different but whether the bigotry is justified."

Again, you misunderstand. Humans do not do what is "justified" or what is "good" or "evil" or "right" or "wrong." People just do whatever it takes to ensure that their genes are passed on into the next generation just like all the other organisms on this planet. (Well, sometimes we don't do this effectively, but that's a matter of a lag in evolution and another issue entirely.)

To speak of bigotry being justified or not is nonsensical in terms of biology. All groups everywhere will always be at odds with other groups (especially when resources are scarce -- think bad economic times for humans). You will not get people to drop their bigoted attitudes and behaviors just by asking them to. You need to change the situation or else things will inevitably come to a head.

What you need to do is inform yourself about biology. If you've never read it, start with The Selfish Gene. Read E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology as well. Then, get yourself informed on the concepts of inclusive fitness and read everything and anything by William D. Hamilton. He's a little technical, but you might try his Narrow Roads to Gene Land.

Takuan said: "The Jews in particular have been genetically assimilated to an astonishing degree."

Takuan said: "Your argument about the Jews spreading in Europe is disingenuous."

No, it is not. Jews were expelled from the Merovingian kingdom in 629. Jewish merchants did not return to northern Europe until Charlemagne. In other words, they migrated northwards of their own choice after Rome was long gone.

after years of analyzing and dissecting the symptoms, you have surgically identified and diagnosed the disease. It's been a long way, since "Rape Epidemics in Sweden", of documenting step by step this almost terminal phase of Western illness and, finally, putting the finger in the wound, so to speak.

I have to add something: the Idea/Proposition Nation is an avatar of the European concept of universal morality, rooted in Christianity and best summed up by Kant in his categorical imperative.While it served us well for centuries, when European societies - be they old city-states or modern nation-states - were, in general, genetically and culturally homogenous, since Enlightment and particularly since the French Revolution (or the proto-Bolshevik Revolution, as I call it) it has gradually become our Achilles's heel. In the name of egalitarian universalism, Europeans or their heirs on other continents offered citizenship and equal rights to mentally or culturally different, ethnocentric or tribalistic out-groups that obviously are not able or unwilling to respond in the spirit of Kantian reciprocity. Now, the universalist disease is in metastasis - everybody in the world is entitled to Western citizenship. It's impossible to save the West, if it will ever happen, without reversing this suicidal trend. Which means: to acknowledge that the core of a nation is formed by an ethnicity and it's up to this ethnic group to decide whom they receive or whom they reject from their territory, and in what conditions other groups or individuals are going to co-exist in their lands. Otherwise, the only choice left is to continue the multi-kult self-immolation.

Concerning the example of sectarian strife between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, and the unspecified analogy you drew:

"Heated debate between sects over minor ideological differences is a Western specialty that could successfully be viewed as a secularization of older Christian practices."

What is the meaning of these two assertions loosely applied to the history of Christianity, "minor ideological differences" and "sects", I wonder.

Question, because I'm not entirely convinced of the successfulness of your view:What specific Christian sects, having heated debates over minor ideological differences, were you thinking of when you wrote this?

You never detected an intent in your studies (teachers, lectures, classes, textbooks) to inculcate shame and guilt for all the wrongs done to aborigines by the white invaders of Australia?

Hardly at all. There were some 'inferences' but these were mainly from Aboriginals themselves. It was left to us, as university students hopefully capable of thinking for ourselves, to make what we liked out of it. Universities are NOT places where you are supposed to be "told" how to think or feel. We get the raw material and make our own conclusions. If there is any "intent" to "tell you" how to think and feel, then you're still in primary school or early high school.

I did a final year thesis on Aboriginal art and the main thrust of essay was about differences in perception, ie Aboriginal art tends to be "bird's eye view" not horizontal. The art is usually a story, time is not chronological, and landscape is strongly connected with identity. Went to see some ancient art in the Kimberley. Wonderful experience!

I think that the commenters who are fixating on what it means to be 'white' (whatever that actually is) and those who spout of pc claptrap about us all being one race, blah blah blah are missing the point entirely.

It is the foundational beliefs of those who are currently are in charge of Western countries that matter here. THAT IS THE POINT.

And what do THEY think when they consider what it is to be 'white' - that anyone with pale skin living anywhere west of Jerusalem SHOULD BE guilt ridden surrender junkies? That they SHOULD kowtow to anyone who claims that Mohammad was the last prophet? That anyone who criticises Islam MUST BE LABELLED A RACIST .. et cetera.

It is THEIR ideas about race that are the issue here - after all it is they who bandy the term about all over the place, and their intellectually weak lackeys in the media who parrot the term every five minutes. It is up to THEM to define THEIR terms. If they can't then that's THEIR problem.

Your article displays a thorough and integral critique of the "condition humainoide" that is so common among our ruling class. This congregation of the anointed, aggregate global emperors without clothes has been allowed to handle the steering wheel of our welfare nations with license and what must have seemed like a joy-ride after WW-II, will end up in a resounding crash against the wall of their own social engineering laboratories, to wit: our western nations. And before some commenters admonish me for laying the blame solely at the feet of a "dastardly cabal of elites, conspiring to bring down the common man", let me state clearly what is so deeply tragic about this imminent crash. It is exactly because the general public is compromised in this scheme, because when stealing from each other through the medium of the State, many joined the state-sponsored bandwagon, whereas a substantial remainder of the public was taken for a ride. Now that we are facing the wall, only seconds before impact, it appears that we, the people, have granted pall position as crash test dummies.

I especially like the part about the welfare state that unites professional bureaucrats and career politicians, as well as the general public, in the idea of well.. What idea exactly? I second your diagnosis as to the nefarious role played by Enlightenment ideology and its reification in the political mores of the nations that you present as examples. But there's something with your portrayal of polar opposites that seems a bit off.Why is it that you feel the apparent need to pit your critique of the Idea Nation against numerous references that on aggregate seem to represent an opposing force grounded in material existence? I mean, "loyalty to the Swedish nation as a biological reality", "genetically speaking"..?

This one sums up the ambivalence for me:

"A nation consists of a group of genetically related people with shared historical experiences, a roughly similar outlook and cultural background as well as emotional ties to their ancestors and to the land they live on."

Why contaminate this fine traditional view of a nation with progressivist and highly politicized abstractions like "genetical relatedness"?

"Every real nation is a country of a common blood. The only nations that claim to be defined by creeds are — come to think of it — totalitarian states. The Soviet Union [..] really was a credal nation [..] When the common blood dries up and the civilization founded on it withers, all that’s left is the state."

So again, it is "blood" versus "creed"? And was there really a lack of "common blood" that troubled the Soviet Empire? I find that perspective highly contentious. How about applying your fine critique of the interventionist welfare State to the Soviet experiment, and characterize it as an attack on Russian tradition and the people representing the life"blood" of traditional Russian society, like the Kulak farmers?Why this peculiar insistence on pitting the extremist "ideational" version of Liberalism against competing and equally modernist fetishes like race, blood and political Fabianesque genetics? Why present this false opposition between two essentially deterministic visions on modern society, when the alternative - the West of traditions - also features richly in this valuable essay?

What also bothers me every now and then about this side-tracking from tradition with these leftist abstractions, is the faint smell of a victim mentality that leads to descriptions of the main problem in terms of a deliberate attack on whites by the political nomenclatura.

And for sure, judged by the surface effects of PC/MC the policies that have been put in place, without decisive opposition by the general public, I add, could indeed be seen as indicative of a wholesale anti-indigenous campaign against Western natives.But why judge this outcome at face value and attribute it to some barely hidden and well orchestrated anti-white agenda? There are two related but distinct perspectives on the defining struggle here, that seem to vie for our attention:

1) Welfare state ideology and control versus traditional society and values.2) The Idea Nation and its "humanitarian" values versus the Biological reality of Nationhood.

For me, the power of your analysis would greatly benefit if you'd dissolve the second perspective. The Idea Nation can i.m.o. be viewed as the symbolic representation of the welfare state apparatus itself and the historical notion of "Social Contract" society, justly criticized by Scruton and others. The second part, represented by curious and loosely formulated references to biology, race and genetics should be discarded wholesale i.m.o., for two reasons. One is the absence of any need to bring these progressivist concepts into play, if one thoroughly explores the vast area of European tradition, like you do in other fine contributions, all the way back to the Middle Ages and beyond. Describing the various traditional populations of Europe naturally implies all of these ethnic issues, but with the added benefit that the focus shifts our attention to traditional values that have shaped Europe as a civilization. The second reason involves a critique of importing concepts from science and adapt them for political use. For me that smacks too much of progressivism for comfort and it distracts from an otherwise clear and cogent analysis.

Nick's idea that Western leaders define the concept of being white (with an infinite attendant white guilt for often unspecified and/or illogical 'crimes' against past and present non-whites to be financially atoned for forever by present and future whites; and, apparently, nobody but nobody has a problem defining white versus non-white when it comes time to hand out substantial financial immigration and affirmative action benefits to non-whites; to wit, nobody is stopping white people at the border of France lately, ahem) seems logically compatible with Eileen O'Connor's genetics ideas (where non-whites readily absorb and adopt the Western leaders views of whites because non-whites perceive those views to offer them a significant genetic advantage which in their case is eat in the West and live - versus starve at home and die).

In contrast, Hesperado claims that the majority of the West including leaders and white people are PC MC with 'good' motives based on a historical progression of bad logic. Otherwise, why would we save the West; to wit, if our motives aren't good, what would be worth saving? Here, I'm just guessing that our genes (as endangered and/or eliminated by white genocide) are not considered to be worth saving unless they are well-intentioned genes....

Then, Rosalie states that "...the Idea/Proposition Nation is an avatar of the European concept of universal morality, rooted in Christianity and best summed up by Kant in his categorical imperative,” thus, effectively blaming Christianity for this multicultural mess. Talk about blaming the victim....

BUT, Fjordman provides us with this quotation: "Lord Glasman — a personal friend of the Labour Party leader — in 2011 stated that “Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration… and there’s been a massive rupture of trust.” He admitted that the Labour Party had sometimes been actively hostile to the white natives. In particular, they tended to view white working-class voters as “an obstacle to progress.”"

OK, Hesperado and Rosalie, which is it? If the majority of common (non-leader) white people believe in universal morality and PC MC (as firmly rooted in Christianity - let me take a moment to barf here while I revile how the concept of false charity has been wholly misinterpreted and attributed as the definitive trait of Christianity instead of its true definitive trait which is FREE WILL! OK, I'm back!), then why did Labour leaders consider the common white people to be 'an obstacle to progress' who required leaders to lie to them to implement mass non-white immigration?

Surely, not a conspiracy of white leaders (as clearly stated by the white leaders themselves now that their worldwide plan is far enough along to scare the bejesus out of anyone paying attention - and you tend to pay attention as you are being beaten senseless by the local black mob, Hispanic gang, or Muslim ummah-makers - you know, until you slip into the coma....) because Hesperado only admits to conspiracy where Muslims attempt to implement the ummah - rather than where white leaders use the ummah - and Mexican drug cartels, whatever is handy - in successive steps to implement universal slavery - as distinctly opposed to universal morality unless we’re adopting the Islamic model- mainly via unmitigated violence leading to third world poverty in first world nations as a result of their having become draconian totalitarian states in order to 'combat' surrogate violence inflicted with that sole purpose by white leaders on their own people.

Here in the United States, airport security physically searches babies and young children for bombs which is a de facto unqualified admission that Muslims are fully willing to blow up babies and young children - and that white people have been conquered by their white leaders who use Muslim deviancy as an excuse to support government deviancy.

Please note that slavery is the opposite of FREE WILL. See how well Satan works to achieve his goals?!

Fjordmans analysis is perfekt , on a theoretical level . He is NOT a soldier , I think and therefore he might not feel the practical reality of FIGHTING Islaam , which might be the only way to find our way back towards at nation state as oposed to a proposition state

I'd like to insist on a fact that already has been mentioned and which seems to be of vital importance to me.

This essay mentions a lot of important issues but stays on the surface. In "normal society", you should not discuss the part islamic ideology is playing. What is not discussed here is which ideologies and which lobby groups promote multiculturalism and white guilt most aggressively. Off course, those promoters are Jews but one is supposed not to speak about this fact. In this sense, Fjordman's essay has a blind spot. Read this here and you get an idea of some of the protagonists in promoting white guilt and why they do it:

Nick: It is true that those who are in charge believe in white guilt. The problem goes deeper than this, though, because most people in the West, both white and non-white (however you want to define it) have accepted and internalized the view of those in charge. The best way to resist what is happening to our societies is to promote the opposite view, which means being supportive of whites as whites.

Come to think of it, it is not just the people of the West who have internalized it, but apparently all societies in the world who have any level of education and exposure to mass media.

This is perhaps the best single essay Fjordman has published in all the years I've been following him. I don't blame the Mexicans for inundating the once great state of California, but instead the US government who willfully allowed it to happen, and even encouraged the displacement of American citizens. The Somalis who live across the street from me and haven't had employment since they arrived three years ago, didn't get here without the relocation and welfare assistance of the US government. Exactly why we continue an open borders policy and the resettlement of hundreds of thousands of Third Worlders annually when the US has an official unemployment rate of nine percent, and an unofficial rate of around twenty, begs the question of who exactly our representative government represents.

If the majority of common (non-leader) white people believe in universal morality and PC MC, then why did Labour leaders consider the common white people to be 'an obstacle to progress' who required leaders to lie to them to implement mass non-white immigration?

What the majority thinks is irrelevant, since it's not the masses that make history, but the leaders, the "elite" - politicians, intellectuals, media moguls, financiers.(Even revolutions or mass-movements need leaders and organizers to be successful.)They lied for the same reason Bolsheviks in USSR used to lie: to advance their ideology and to preserve their power, combined with the usual contempt the oligarchs have for the "proles" ("we know better what's good for you"). Their moral corruption and dishonesty do not contradict the fact that they are, at the same time, ideologically blinded (again, see the Bolsheviks).

What is not discussed here is which ideologies and which lobby groups promote multiculturalism and white guilt most aggressively.

It's not discussed openly, but it is implicit: since the disease was diagnosed - the proposition nation -, and the remedy was found - more or less, what we call the ethnostate, those ideologies and lobby groups that oppose the existence of the ethnostate should be neutralized, shunned or annihilated.

You display the particular obstinacy of the "one-theory" people so common in academia, in the major religions, in liberalism, libertarianism, antisemitism, communism -- all the "isms", really -- and HBD too. While my knowledge of biology ended with HS, and of HBD with reading its interpreters like Steve Sailer and Razib Khan, it appears that your knowledge of what religion, ritual, art, myth, storytelling, philosophy, ethos, law -- indeed culture -- do and are designed to do appears to be lacking. But all those have existed for a very long time precisely to interpret and impose what's "good," right", "just", "moral", "legal" and "permissible." So please stop waving your gene books and theories like you and I are ameobas, for people do what their ruling elite teaches and forces them to do, and that's not just now but 15,000 years ago too. There may be contrary biological impulses, but they are supposed to be channeled per society's prescriptions and proscriptions. The Ten Commandments is culture standing athwart biology and screaming, Halt!

As to Jews, of course it's a separate gene pool. If you need my bona-fides on that I'll tell you that I refer to myself as bi-racial, having had a Jewish father. What I'll never know though, is whether my father was genetically 100% or 83% Jewish, and my mother 100% or 91% Slav. Jews have been in Europe that long, and sufficient numbers of them have been mixing with the indigenous population.

Your argument about the Jews' spreading in Europe out of their choice remains disingenuous. Of course they spread out of their own choice except when they have been forced to do so due to pogroms and expulsions. So what? The initial spreading all across Southern Europe was settlement within the Empire that had imported them, and it continued northward within the successor Holy Roman Empire. So let people who have a problem with the Jews' presence in and impact on Europe blame the Romans, not the Jews.

This is the very gist of Fjordman's article and the discussion above. The Muslims and other third-worlders are here because someone has imported them. It's time to focus energy and thought toward exposing and beating back those exporters, for they are the real culprit.

It's more plausible to me to believe that Labour leaders (there we can actually pin the label "Leftist Elites" accurately) are so out of out touch with the "common" Englishman they don't even realize most of them are already PC MC.

Secondly, there is a large minority of "common" Englishmen (and Irish/Welsh/Scots) who at the very least seem to be soccer hooligan slash working class bigots, and those Labor leaders, like most Leftist Elites, exaggerate the demographics of such types (just as American Leftists (and Euro Leftists no doubt) think the vast majority of Americans are Obese White Evangelical Gunshow Mobile Home Rednecks; when they are obviously not).

Just as the ultra Right tends to exaggerate and mischaracterize dimensions of the problem (morphing it into a "globalist" apocalypse-cum-pan-Western-civil-war directed by a dastardly cabal of Elites who may or may not be controlled at the top by Jews), so too ultra Leftists (and most Leftists, since Leftism by nature has become skewed Leftward toward its ism of extremism) tend to exaggerate and mischaracterize whomever they deem to be obstacles to their idea of the Good Society.

I tend to take the view that yes, anyone who disagrees with the ideas of the oligarchy are seen as an obstacle to 'progress' (i.e. the ultimate and complete compliance with their ideas). And in order to crush dissenting voices, the elite and their lackeys in the media employ the label 'racist' - among others. As we all know.

One of the most devious things the oligarchy can do is get people to practice self-censorship. James Kelman's 'And The Judges Said ...' explains this point very well.

So one can either be silenced by the thought of being labelled a 'racist' (whatever that means).

Or we can all join in an endless debate about what the term 'racist' means, et cetera ...

I say, having identified the actual culprits - put the ball back in THEIR court whenever THEY use the word, and say - define your terms please. And once you've done that, THEN explain how opening one's mouth and uttering words which express disagreement with an ideology (any ideology, take your pick) matches YOUR definition. If you can't do that, then YOU quite literally don't know what you're talking about.

@Blogger, If everything is so peachy keen in Australia, then why is it that all I hear is whining & b*tching about the muslim problem there. You might want to head over to the "Winds of Jihad" site and have a look. But take off the rose colored glasses first please.

I've noticed something peculiar about Australian anti-Islam folks: unlike the anti-islam folks of every other Western country (who readily admit, and complain about, the poor record of their own respective country with regard to the problem of Islam), Australian anti-Islam folks tend to boast about how well their country is handling the problem.

There are only two possible explanations for this curious tendency:

1) either the Australian anti-Islam folks are accurate in their perception, and Australia is remarkably unique among all Western nations

or

2) these Australian anti-Islam folks are confusing national pride with what is actually happening in their country.

Again, Australia seems to have a marginally better record than most other Western countries in the way they handle the problem; but marginal ain't good enough, and they should stop boasting as though they've leapt astronomic bounds when they are only incrementally inches ahead of the rest of us.

It's not so peachy Ib; it's just that aussies in general are anti-elitist and overall don't put up with the same "Islam is peaceful" fogging from people in powerful positions, that other countries do. They speak out faster and louder and call a spade a spade. That is why we have less problems here than other countries.

I suppose different Aussies have different perspectives on this. I knew an Aussie who at the time (10 years ago) was about 40 years old. He complained about how Australia had changed in the 80s, how it had essentially become PC MC about a whole host of sociopolitical issues, and that this could be seen, and felt, on all levels of society; and that Aussies like him, who were "old school" (i.e., were like Aussies used to be pre-80s), were increasingly being marginalized and mocked much as "rednecks" are marginalized and mocked in America.

You can't tell me there hasn't been a major shift in Australia with respect to "respecting" aboriginal culture, lamenting what the English did to them, trying to make amends in various ways, etc. (Same for New Zealand and its Maoris.) My Aussie acquaintance said that basically, since the 80s, any Aussie who would say that aboriginal culture is inferior to Western culture would be deemed a "bigot".

That's the problem the whole West faces, with respect to a whole rainbow of inferior cultures we can no longer call inferior (for the various multitude of reasons such a judgment is cogent) without being sociopolitically marginalized as "bigots", "racists", "haters". As far as that rainbow of cultures, I find it a nuisance and an insult to my intelligence, but it doesn't rise to the level of a positive danger to our society to have critical thinking hamstrung that way -- but it does with respect to the one Third World culture that is a danger to the West (and to the world): Islam. Unfortunately, Islam comes along as part of the package of "respect" for non-Western cultures -- and indeed, has catapulted to enjoy the most respect and privileges of any non-Western culture on Earth.

I have to ask you, Takuan -- where does culture come from? This is not a question I mean for you to answer here, but just something for you to ponder. Where does culture come from?

Unless one believes in the supernatural (or aliens or Easter Bunnies), then one must conclude that culture comes from us. Culture is a product of how we think and how we feel (aspects of ourselves which are, in turn, products of our biology). That's why there are different cultures in the world -- because different peoples have evolved to fit different environments and circumstances and, so, think and feel differently.

The Ten Commandments are not some aspect of culture in place to put a stop to our biological natures. (Regulate, yes -- put a halt to, definitely not.) The Ten Commandments are a product of a certain people's biological nature -- the ways in which a certain group from the Middle East happened to think and feel about the world. Their function is to regulate interaction between the members of the group and their reproductive practices.

You seem to think that culture is something "other" than our biological natures. No. Culture is just a product of our natures and its purpose is to enable its practitioners to reproduce as successfully as possible. "Go forth and multiply!"

Takuan said: "Of course they spread out of their own choice.... So what?"

Well, no "so what" really. It wasn't a question I was particularly bothered about. I was just responding to your assertion that the Jews got to where there are today in Europe because "they were brought there mainly as Roman slaves." That's not entirely true, that's all. They, themselves, chose to migrate northwards into Europe after Rome fell rather than do an about face and migrate back towards the Middle East. I have no issue with this. I just like to have the facts straight.

Takuan said: "This is the very gist of Fjordman's article and the discussion above. The Muslims and other third-worlders are here because someone has imported them."

I thought the gist of Fjordman's article was that, for a nation to work, it needs to be made up of "a people" and not be a Proposition Nation:

"As Sam Francis reminded us, 'every real nation is a country of a common blood. The only nations that claim to be defined by creeds are — come to think of it — totalitarian states. The Soviet Union, a 20th century descendant of the French Revolution, really was a credal nation, and it survived only because it rested on the same Terror that reigned in France. When the common blood dries up and the civilization founded on it withers, all that’s left is the state.'

"Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis. After the Second World War, any talk of genetic differences, of being related by blood or of ties to the soil you live on became associated with Nazism and therefore seen as evil. Out of the many things the Nazis destroyed, this was one of the most damaging, but perhaps least appreciated today. I would be tempted to declare the Nazis the most anti-white movement that ever existed, considering the incalculable damage they did to Europeans and people of European origins.

"The main reason why we are threatened by outside forces today is because of the notion that our countries should be glorified shopping centers where anybody should be free to enter as they desire. As long as this situation continues, we will never be able to defeat our enemies.

"Our primary enemy is the Proposition Nation, not Islam. The only way to restore sanity to our countries is to restore the concept that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage."

Will any of you read the article by Prof. MacDonald I linked above, or at the very least ponder in the words of that Jewess Swede, that “Jews are going to be at the centre of a huge transformation for Europe,” and that native whites “are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role”? Her words…

@ “This is perhaps the best single essay Fjordman has published in all the years I've been following him.” – zonkerharris

Really? This and all previous articles by Fjordman suffer from a blind spot in Fj’s midst of vision: he’s unable to see the elephant in the room, the Jewish Problem.

Fortunately other former counter-jihad sites are now awakening. For instance, one of the sites that originally became impressed with Fjordman’s journalist talents, so impressed in fact that the admin chose naming his site with the penname of his fan, http://fjordman.wordpress.com/, has already woke up. That German site, As der Schwerter (Ace of Swords), is now openly repudiating Jew-blind counter-jihad.

For instance, the recent As der Schwerter entry about the Pat Condell video in which Condell spares Jews from his anti-religious diatribes contains a sentence in German that translated to English reads: “And if you look at what has been transformed into the blinders club called ‘counter-jihad’ scene, it was high time that we have changed our name to Ace of Swords.”

Exactly the same paradigm shift occurred in another notable counter-jihad site, this one in Spanish, La Yijad en Eurabia (The Jihad in Eurabia). The Spanish admin, now fully conscious of the Jewish Problem, changed it ten days ago to La Sexta Redoma.

* * *

Writing in a rush in my previous comment I asked: “Why did you left [sic] out an important culprit Fjordman, the Jewish involvement in shaping American immigration policy?” It should read: “Why did you leave out…”

An elemental grammatical mistake, but if Fjordman ever reads Prof. MacDonald’s work on how Jews strenuously lobbied for more than a century to open the borders of non-white immigration into the US, I hope that he’ll resubmit this article with an elemental correction: “If we make a list of groups or institutions that are promoting the dispossession and destruction of Europeans it would look something like this, starting from the top down: (1) The United States government, (2) the European Union, (3) Jews…”

The new POV of the mentioned bloggers who are awakening could be boiled down to a nutshell:

“Jihadist Muslims in Europe are the invading Orcs. But the real enemy is Sauron (the subversive Jew).” –César Tort

Hesperado wrote: "Again, Australia seems to have a marginally better record than most other Western countries in the way they handle the problem; but marginal ain't good enough, and they should stop boasting as though they've leapt astronomic bounds when they are only incrementally inches ahead of the rest of us."

I think Australian pride in how they've "dealt" w/Islamofascism is less due to their own efforts than the mere fact they don't yet have a pathological population of Muslims in their country yet. They have had instances of Muslim rape gangs active in their country already as well as Muslim terrorism directed against a Hindu temple (the temple was shot up by gunfire).

First, we have a very high concentration of media ownership. It's Murdoch's News Ltd or Fairfax. You have a few other spots come in (Channel 7, the ABC an cable channels such as Sky News). But regardless, we have those two gatekeepers, and if they don't run it, then we largely don't see it.

Second, we are lagging well behind the rest of the world. Calls for Sharia are there, but they're weak. The Muslim civil organisations that would lobby for its introduction are not doing so now because they know they don't have the numbers. In short, they're still constructing their home bases in Australia, whereas they're already set up in America and Europe.

So, we don't see it, and the Muslims are being discrete about it anyway. However, I've come to realise what the prime folly of the West is - pride, of the kind that goeth before a great fall. We have such pride in our own strength that we fail to see it undermined, and Australian CJ members (myself included, though I'd probably leave out Sheik Yer'mami) are still exhibiting this pride.

As regards Australia, recently an Australian judge practiced effective Sharia Law by releasing after three years a Muslim immigrant who raped 6 women and a 13 year old girl in his FIRST MONTH of living in Australia.

Evidently, the Australian women and girl were at fault for tempting the poor chap past his Muslim limit. I can spell Sharia Law, can you?!

"Proposition Nation" was a concept hatched by human minds. The 1965 Immigration Act was pushed and enacted by specific human agents. The point is not whether "Proposition Nation " is a viable concept. For 90% of the readers of this blog it's a given that it's not, that it's a horrible monstrosity. The issue is therefore who has inflicted it on us. Various preople in this forum opined on that issue, with one in particlar blaming it on the Joos and castigating Fjordman for not pointing that out. That's how you and I got to discuss the Jewish issue in the first place.

Re: genes v. culture, I am by no means in the tabula rasa camp. Genes count. And culture is the product of genes, geography, and aleatory circumstance. The Ten Commandments may be a collective expression of a particular Philistine or Habiru tribe under slavery in Egypt, but it may also be the product of one man, Moses, who got stoned on some desert weed and dreamed up the whole thing in one wild night. Still sticking to rational explanations, though there are of course the faith-based ones.

Chechar's post -- to the extent that it accurately portrays what it implies (that a growing intra-AIM sub-movement is afoot guided by the epiphany that Jews are the overarching problem behind the problem of Islam (along with a whole host of related, and not-so-related, problems)) -- points to a major rift developing in the AIM.

Some differences can survive cohesion within an overall unity for a movement; others cannot. This one, it seems to me, cannot but result in a split of the AIM into two camps at odds with each other. The nature of the difference is such that no amount of discussion and debate will heal the rift (even if a few from the one camp -- i.e., who don't agree that Jews are the real problem behind the problem of Islam -- may come to have that epiphany and cross over).

Currently, there seem to be two major groupings in this regard among the AIM:

1) Those who think the West's inability to deal effectively with the problem of Muslims is due to some vast, powerful, and evil conspiracy composed of some cabal

2) Those who disagree with #1, and who think the West's inability is due to factors not conspiratorial and evil.

Those in #2 tend to be subdivided into two loose camps:

a) Those who don't have a clear explanation for why, and how, such a colossal inability manifests itself throughout the West, and when pressed usually reach for variations on the theme expressed classically by Hugh Fitzgerald as the "Esdrujula Explanation" (which, as I have analyzed here, is not really an explanation, but merely a description that sheds little light on the why and the how)

b) Those who have attempted an explanation (so far, I seem to be the only person to have spent time doing this).

Meanwhile,

Those who gravitate to #1, pace Chechar, seem to be subdividing into two groupings mentioned above -- namely:

a) Those who think the vast conspiracy is directed and controlled by Jews (with a little help from their non-Jewish friends, apparently, along with millions of dupes/sheep who don't realize they are being directed and controlled to destroy their own civilization)

b) Those who resist ascribing the evil nexus of the conspiracy to Jews (but some of whom may grudgingly give lip service to conceding a little Jewish influence here and there).

It is readily apparent that #1 is a type of thinking ripe for the evolution toward the epiphany of 1a; though that by no means means that all of those who are #1 will make the move. It is likely that many will continue to hold out for a more amorphously diverse cabal on which to pin the Real Problem and Real Evil of which Muslims are being used as pawns.

At any rate, time will tell how big the rift will be (i.e., how large the numbers of those who fit #1a will become).

That quotation by C.T. was more a lyric resource than an academic statement. If you want a serious statement, at least read the abstract of MacDonald’s long academic paper I linked twice.

You won’t believe it, but in the white nationalist sites I usually take the opposite stance I take here: trying to refute the single-cause (Sauron the Jew) hypothesis of Western current malaise. For instance, in a recent Counter-Currents thread on Sam Francis (btw, Francis was mentioned in Fj’s piece) I said about the single-cause (Jewish) hypothesis that: “The more I think about it the more I believe that something big is escaping the models I have encountered so far in the nationalist literature. I suspect what I have called elsewhere 'a monster from the Id' and/or a flaw in the white psyche: out-group altruism. Impossible to crack the cipher with the current data.”

Perhaps only half of white nationalists believe in the single-cause hypothesis (Sauron). The other half tend to blame other factors too. Although very conscious of the Jewish problem, some of them have reached conclusions similar to those of a blogger who used to be a regular here, Con Swede.

I would recommend leaving aside my lyric epigraph on Sauron and concentrate instead in (at least) MacDonald’s abstract of his long paper.

Re: Those who have attempted an explanation (so far, I seem to be the only person to have spent time doing this).

Maybe ¼ of the 200k words I have published since 2007 is devoted to that explanation – quite a bit of it on this website too. It’s a plausible one too with much internal consistency and explanatory power. Alas, it’s based on an Oriental mode of perceiving Reality and perhaps not readily digestible by the average Occidental reader.

However, the anonymous Spanish poet who wrote “Europa murió en Auschwitz” telegraphed in its first line a particular application of the cosmic Tao principle to the self-solicited Muslim invasion:

The Muz were simply the handy whip with which white people could flog themselves in conscious and subconscious expiation for what they had done to the Jews. A pendulum swing from an extreme yang to an extreme yin, with no elite guardians to cry Stop! -- to point out that a new evil cannot cancel out its predecessor opposite evil.

Chechar: Per Hesperado, we are all very PC MC. In addition, we are human; and, based on the inhumane and tragic WWII attempt at Jewish genocide, we are very hesitant to start blaming Jews for causing world problems that may very well lead to the next major round of civilizational violence and/or World War III.

BUT....

I personally have recently begun to consider the possibility that the inhumane and tragic WWII attempt at Jewish genocide enraged some undefined number of very smart Jews who have made it their life's goal to exact revenge of Biblical proportions upon those religions and countries who are considered to have permitted, encouraged, and/or participated in the inhumane and tragic WWII attempt at Jewish genocide.

Revenge-motivated Jews would weep NO tears for the death of the West and its Christians OR the death of the East and its Muslims. Either outcome would suit their need for revenge against the perpetrators of the inhumane and tragic WWII attempt at Jewish genocide.

Revenge-motivated Jews would be blinded by pain masked as anger. As a WWII teenager, George Soros denied his Jewish identity and betrayed his own people. Would it be possible that Soros then vowed to become rich and powerful in the future to avenge Jewish suffering in the past? If so, then we are looking at a complicated chess game with lots of moving parts.

Without going into excessive detail, I would like to echo previous calls in this thread for a rational and unvarnished appraisal of how modern day Jews are driving the PCMC engine in ways that may yet destroy us all.

While I remain a staunch supporter of Israel, there continue to be growing concerns about how the Jewish state proliferates Western military technology to our enemies and the way that ultra-Liberal Jews continue to facilitate immigration policies that are clearly detrimental to human liberty.

To Hell with the usual brickbats about Marxism's roots and other shopworn accusations. We need some honest and open discussion about how post-modern Liberal Jews are pushing agendas that harm First World exceptionalism.

More than almost any other web site, Gates of Vienna holds the promise of being able to provide this sort of forum.

Just as it has been so important to parse Liberalism's role in facilitating Islam, so is it crucial to begin sorting out how modern day Jews are, wittingly or not, serving the ends of jihad.

P.S. Such revenge motivated Jews would actually give the West and East a chance to prove that their modern reactions to an inhumane and tragic attempt at Jewish genocide would be different and better than their WWII reactions - using the modern treatment of Israel as a benchmark to measure any change.

Should the West and/or East fail that test by permitting, encouraging, and/or participating in an inhumane and tragic attempt at Jewish genocide, then revenge motivated Jews would feel fully justified in taking "an eye for an eye" and causing great pain to the West and the East.

@ “I personally have recently begun to consider the possibility that the inhumane and tragic WWII attempt at Jewish genocide enraged some undefined number of very smart Jews who have made it their life's goal to exact revenge of Biblical proportions upon those religions and countries who…”

This is precisely the subject-matter of yesterday’s article in Counter-Currents, a white nationalist reading on the Holocaust. It’s a rather long piece but IMO a good starting point to understand that Jewish revenge of Biblical proportions that we gentiles are suffering now (I commented very briefly on it in my blog, here).

Before reaching my present stage I struggled a lot with myself in the absolute solitude of my room. In fact, I would call this mental warfare as a grand, internal jihad that precedes jihad in the outside world (poetic license once again).

Chechar: As regards the Counter- Currents article, I skimmed it, and this line popped out at me:

"Through a remarkable transformation, the Allied victors have become co-agents in the crimes and alleged crimes of the regime they defeated, and the war itself has been reimagined as a Judeocentric moral test, which all of us conspicuously failed."

It's either you or me. This blog will have to choose. I feel soiled by being on the same page with you. Unless you are bounced from here, I take a hike. Your response, if any, will get no response from me.

The Muz were simply the handy whip with which white people could flog themselves in conscious and subconscious expiation for what they had done to the Jews.

I don't buy this. What have Americans or Canadians done to the Jews to expiate the sins of the Nazis? What have the Serbs done to the Jews, since they fought against Hitler since day 1? Because the Jewish organizations lobbyed aggressively for bombing Serbia, and a "moral authority" like Elie Wiesel compared the Kosovars with Jews in WWII - the Kosovars, not the Serbs who stood with the Jews in the same Ustasha concentration camps.

But it's useless to point fingers, like children in kindergarten - "you did this!", "no, it's you who did this!". Eileen described the problem like a grown-up: Jews are an out-group, and whites are an out-group for the Jews. It's insane to allow members of an out-group to hold positions of power and influence in a state - be they Jews, Muslims, Blacks or whatever. It's the equivalent of white Christians holding positions of power in Israel - a possibility that is carefully avoided, through legal means, by the Israeli leaders - and for good reasons. Actually, Israel is a good model and example about how an ethnostate for Europeans should look like. That's the opposite of the proposition nation.

The Muz were simply the handy whip with which white people could flog themselves in conscious and subconscious expiation for what they had done to the Jews."

The not so little problem with this logic ignores the massive fact that "we" didn't massacre 6 million Jews. A subset of "us" did so (and more or less joined them and/or enabled them). The majority of "us" expended years of blood, sweat, toil and intellectual excellence fighting against that disease -- and won. The West that won went on to become infected with PC MC, to be sure, but that's a crime far less malignant than the disease, and still cause for hope that the innate Western rationality that helped defeat the megalomaniac global supremacism of the Axis Powers still remains, and can be revived. PC MC is very recent. The paradigm shift that enabled it is young; the rationality it diverted is inveterate and has far richer, deeper and broader roots. Thus, a reversal of that paradigm shift -- another paradigm shift away from it -- is certainly as likely (if not more so). That doesn't mean it won't be difficult and won't involve horrendous tragedy (as did the appeasement climate that enabled Hitler); but it doesn't mean it's impossible.

If, however, the problem is a massive and strangely powerful conspiracy; well, then, the only hope is in some kind of apocalyptic devolution of the West and a rebirth from a global war that would make the first three World Wars all put together minuscule by comparison. For God's sake, advocating such an inevitability -- the Mother of All Conspiracies of near eschatological dimensions -- should have more solid evidence even than any single conspiracy theory is rightfully required to muster.

You are not paying attention. I repeat the Julia Gorin quip I quoted earlier:

"Now when a black man is in the White House, our work is done. It's okay for the Muslims to come now and kill us."

Gorin BTW -- a Russian-Jewish immigrant-- is a major activist on behalf of Serbia and a vociferous critic of the Bosnia-Kosovo progressive insanity. In a similar vein, Ilana Mercer, a daughter of a South African rabbi, is a committed defender of the white cause in South Africa.

Jews are not doing what they are doing out of any enmity to America or Canada or Australia. They are doing it because they suffer from a collective (if not absolutely so) virus of tikkun olam -- "improving" the world. It's not necessarily a bad thing: the 10 Commandments, the prophets, Jesus and the early Jewish Christians were all expressions of that ingrained tendency. But there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, and there is a time and place for everything and this is the wrong time and place.

Almost everything the Jews are doing in the political arena is hurtful first and above all to themselves. Jew-haters can just sit on the sidelines and watch America's Jews' self-immolation. Jewish org. leaders even take pride in supporting policies that hurt the Jews, as proof of their impeccable morality.

However, all this in no way mitigates the just frustration your feel, or foils your prescription that Jews, like other non-European origin peoples, not be allowed to hold positions of power. Indeed, one scanning the daily news on the likes of Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, Charlie Schumer, the Wiener et al. cannot feel but the way you do.

Don't worry about Chinese immigrants although chopsticks could be used as weapons as seen in the Kungfu movies. The ABCs (American Born Chinese) are often called back home as "bananas"--yellow peels with WHITE inside !

Hesperado,People who tell me what "we" is and what we did and did not do in WW2 forget that I am a product of that war. My distaff family that had nothing to do with Jews or things Jewish lost everything, including its lives, because it helped some hounded Jews with food and shelter. So I know well what we didn't do. Guilt, however, is a psychological construct that has no clearly defined relation to facts. Fjordman often points out that Scandinavia has no history of colonialism and enslavement, yet is a world leader in the self-engineered destruction by the black, brown and Muslim. It may be buried guilt over the Vikings, or over "unearned white privilege" of good looks and good health, or vestiges of harsh Lutheran penance for sins that have nothing to do with things race. Likewise, think about the deep and corrosive Mea Culpa in the Anglosphere about conquest and subjugation of native American peoples, slavery etc. Not that those were pretty things to be proud of, but when have you last heard an Aztec apologize for his people's genocide of the Toltecs, or an Arab apologize for enslaving and abusing horribly probably 20 million African and European captives in all. We seem to possess this unique ability of endless scratching of ancient scabs. That's why I always point out how closely the Christian contribution to PCMC parallels the Jewish one.

Jews are not doing what they are doing out of any enmity to America or Canada or Australia. They are doing it because they suffer from a collective (if not absolutely so) virus of tikkun olam -- "improving" the world.

But how does it happen that they always - ALWAYS - try to "improve the world" at the expense of the white Gentiles? I mean, if they do it for the sake of a better world, can't they involve in their endeavor, at least from time to time, some Chinese, or Somalis, or even themselves? Like, "we want open-borders and unlimited immigration in Senegal or Vietnam, and if the Senegalese or the Vietnamese are opposed to it, they are bigoted racists". Or "for the sake of tikkun olam, we request open borders, affirmative action for the Arabs and a German president in Israel - possibly with granparents in the SS. That's how altruistic we are!".

I think a better explanation would be a historical grudge against white Christians. I don't even try to figure out if it's based on reality or not, because it's irrelevant. The bottom line is: never let an out-group - and especially one with historical animosity against you - to have a say in the matters of the city. Never again.

@ Jews are not doing what they are doing out of any enmity to America or Canada or Australia. They are doing it because they suffer from a collective (if not absolutely so) virus of tikkun olam -- "improving" the world.

This is your own theory about their ultimate motivation. Other GoV-ers have the right to know that Jewish scholar Albert Lindemann wrote a 568-page academic book published by Cambridge University which main thesis, as a reviewer wrote in Canadian Journal of History, “destroys the erroneous view that somehow anti-Semitism is a mysterious eruption having nothing whatever to do with the presence and behavior of the Jewish people themselves.”

After reading the book I understood perfectly why have the Jews caused so much irritation in the West since the 18th and 19th centuries, after the French Revolution granted their emancipation. Eileen could explain scientifically what Lindemann explains from the viewpoint of the humanities. And don’t forget that the Jew Lindemann is considered one of the world’s foremost experts in anti-Semitism.

Since Lindemann basically says that the Jewish Problem is not a gentile hallucination, I already mentioned his work in our exchange at Mangan’s some time ago but you didn’t reply to this specific point. (Dennis Mangan by the way is just another conservative blogger who originally shunned those conscious of the JQ and, after finally waking up, he now fully discusses it.)

@ Almost everything the Jews are doing in the political arena is hurtful first and above all to themselves.

Even if this were true, it does not refute our POV, as I try to explain in an old blog entry about The Scorpion and the Frog.

Chechar and Tanstaafl are hostile, dishonest debaters. In fact, I wouldn’t call them debaters at all, but rather spammers. They essentially post the same comment over and over again, and it’s not even an interesting or intelligent comment. Tanstaafl: We have nothing in common and I will NEVER join your “team.” You should have realized that by now. You have your own blog and there are plenty of others where you can write about this as much as you want to. You have no right to hijack this website where good people invest their time with little or no pay to create important debates.

I will request that GoV deletes Tanstaafl’s latest comment about the Nazis. Some people have mental faculties that require us to protect them from themselves. Tanstaafl clearly falls under that category. Mr. T: Your presence undermines the very purpose of this website. You have no business being here. I don’t spend countless hours of my free time reading or thinking about interesting subjects to write about for you to come here and destroy everything. Take a hike. And that goes for Chechar, too.

I’m sure Chechar will whine and complain about “censorship,” and he’s free to do so….somewhere else, for instance at his own, not terribly interesting blog which he keeps hijacking our posts here by linking to. I’m also sure he will say that I have “no right” to censor him and that doing so is “cowardice.” He’s wrong on both accounts. Yes, I do. I have every right to tell him that his presence is not wanted on my posts, just like a person has the right to decide who he wants to let into his private home. If I try to keep a tidy house and unwanted people intrude and make a mess of it, I have every right to ask them to leave. It’s not “cowardice” to ask bullies to leave, and that’s what Chechar is: a bully. He’s extremely rude and intrudes where he knows perfectly well that he is not wanted, just like the low-IQ Third World thugs he himself despises.

Discrimination is proper and necessary. Our civilization needs more of it in order to survive and prosper. I choose to discriminate against Chechar based on his rudeness, his lack of logic and his general lack of manners. I also choose to discriminate against Tanstaafl based on his lack of a moral compass and above all his lack of intelligence. There should be an IQ limit to posting here, and Tanstaafl does not qualify. He barely has an IQ much higher than that of your average Muhammedan from the Yemen, and he shares much the same obsession with looking for Jews under his bed.

I plead guilty to the rudeness charge, Fjordman: but my rudeness against you was limited to my blog and once at Tan’s, where you have never commented on in any of our threads. But I have never insulted you here at GoV (as you now are insulting me).

I don’t believe that calling the attention of GoV-ers to a scholarly work published by Cambridge, as I did in my latest comment, is “bullying”, “lack or logic” or “spamming.” As to the repetitious nature of mentioning that work the reason is obvious: every time I mentioned Lindemann’s book in the previous months I was shunned. So I don’t feel guilty for citing it once more now that, finally, Zenster, Egghead and perhaps B.B. (the one who signed under the XXXXX penname) are apparently willing to discuss the JQ.

I don’t care that you want me expelled from this blogsite, Fjordman, even if I have not violated Baron and Dymphna’s rules in this thread. What I care is that what both the Jew Lindemann and the gentile MacDonald say in their academic treatises be noted by Gov-ers and other counter-jihadists.

Zenster wrote:

“We need some honest and open discussion about how post-modern Liberal Jews are pushing agendas that harm First World exceptionalism… More than almost any other web site, Gates of Vienna holds the promise of being able to provide this sort of forum.”

Or perhaps you want that the whole subject of the JQ will never be raised again in this forum, as you asked the people of Majority Rights that they stopped all discussion about you in *their* blogsite?

Who’s the dishonest debater here, Fjordman?

@ “his [Chechar’s] presence is not wanted on my posts”

As long as the rules of this site don’t explicitly forbid discussing the JQ, I am sure I or other nationalists will be interested to comment on subjects as your article’s point #3 Muslims that, for any truly honest researcher, should read #3 Jews.

According to exit polls, Jews voted 78-19 for Obama over McCain in 2008. In 2010, despite the massive shift of white voters to the GOP, Jews still voted overwhelmingly for the Dems, 66-31. In Holland, Geert Wilders--easily the most philo-Semitic and pro-Israel politician in Europe--received all of 2% of the Jewish vote. Looking at these numbers, it's pretty hard not to draw the conclusion that Jewish voters consistently favour left-wing parties committed to the destruction of white Christian Europe and America over their own economic interests, the long-term security interests of Israel, and even their own personal safety. Do they really hate us more than they love themselves?

Maybe not. Massive exit polling data from last month's Canadian federal election reveal that 52% of Jews voted for the Conservatives, an extraordinarily high number in what is effectively a five party system (conservatives, liberals, socialists, separatists and greens). Considering that Canadians as a whole only voted 39.6% for the Tories, the Jews have emerged as one of the most right-leaning voting blocs in the country. Yes, I'm shocked too.

By my count there are 13 ridings (constituencies, out of 308) in Canada where the Jewish vote is decisive, 7 in Toronto, 5 in Montreal and 1 in Winnipeg. Five years ago, all of these ridings were solidly Liberal. In 2008, the Conservatives won Thornhill, at 37% the most Jewish riding in the country. In 2011, they won 6 more, and almost won 36% Jewish Mount Royal, Pierre Trudeau's old riding, long considered the safest Liberal seat in Canada. More than any other group, it was Jewish voters that pushed the Conservatives over the top from a minority to a majority government.

How did they do it? Staunch, uncritical support for Israel seems to be the primary reason, though a similar platform didn't help the right-wing parties amongst Jews in the US or Holland. Plus it probably didn't hurt that the Canadian "conservatives" are supporters of mass Third World immigration, official multiculturalism, free speech-stifling "human rights" commissions, gay marriage, abortion on demand, etc etc. But there were 4 other major parties far more committed to these and other leftist idiocies than the Tories were. Yet the Jews voted 52% for the Conservatives.

Can these results be replicated elsewhere? Let's hope so. It really is a waste of time impotently whining about the perfidy of the Jews, and their outsized role in the ongoing destruction of Western civilization. All of it may be true, and cannot and should not be denied, but all that's completely inconsequential at this point. If we're serious--I mean REALLY serious--about wanting to save the West, then we've got to slowly, patiently and tirelessly convert this rich, powerful, intelligent and organized group to our side, period. There is no other way forward. Last month's Canadian election proves that it can be done. If you can't beat 'em, then have them join us.

jeppo: It really is a waste of time impotently whining about the perfidy of the Jews, and their outsized role in the ongoing destruction of Western civilization. All of it may be true, and cannot and should not be denied, but all that's completely inconsequential at this point.

Ummmm … no.

One of the most priceless aspects of this forum is its frequently eloquent and just as often meticulous parsing of issues that are either not covered by the MSM or twisted out of all context by modern media outlets. That the Jews, much like Muslims, are punching so far above their weight when it comes to facilitating jihad is most definitely not "inconsequential".

That said, you have gotten down to the more practical nub involved. As you noted:

If we're serious--I mean REALLY serious--about wanting to save the West, then we've got to slowly, patiently and tirelessly convert this rich, powerful, intelligent and organized group to our side, period. There is no other way forward.

All well and fine for lots of very good reasons.

However, non-Jewish elements of the Counterjihad had better first spend some quality time carefully aligning their juvenile waterfowl before seeking to co-opt what is proving to be a thoroughly contentious subset and particularly potent driver of the PCMC paradigm.

Yes, it would be splendid to somehow realign the wealth of intelligence and persuasive lobbying ability contained within modern Judaism over to our fight against Islam. Still, such a dedicated action must be preceded by an exacting assessment of where, when, how and why this should be achieved.

Little good will be done if some of the insanely suicidal memes being perpetuated by modern Jews are allowed to infect the Counterjihad. Yes, we need unanimity but we do not need it at the expense of a rational and coherent basis for fighting Islam.

TakSey's explanation of how:

The Muz were simply the handy whip with which white people could flog themselves in conscious and subconscious expiation for what they had done to the Jews. A pendulum swing from an extreme yang to an extreme yin, with no elite guardians to cry Stop! -- to point out that a new evil cannot cancel out its predecessor opposite evil.

… while explaining much, does not satisfactorily encapsulate why the highly intelligent West seems thoroughly incapable of recognizing a blatant imposter like Islam. Shari'a is so diametrically opposed to all fundamental human freedoms and liberties that this entire dilemma often assumes preposterous dimensions.

The role of tikkun olam ("repairing the world" as I was taught this quintessentially Jewish meme), certainly goes a long way towards explaining some of the Jewish insanity. Still, even if the West is recoiling in overreaction to the Holocaust, there is no rational way of sussing out the massive blind spot that exists with respect to Islam's history of and continuing pursuit of genocide against the Jews, specifically, and all world cultures in general.

Not even Islam's deft PR is capable of spinning silk out of that pig's ear of a deal-breaker. Yet, here we are, still trying to resolve the how and why of obtaining some badly needed consensus about conducting the Counterjihad at its most basic levels.

Dear Baron, please wrangle together some of your famous prose and set the stage for this badly needed discussion.

I apparently misunderstood you the first time around, but in all fairness you were not making yourself clear -- if you agree with me that the West is not guilty of what Hitler and his enablers did, but on the contrary, is to be commended for rallying together, like healthy white blood cells, to fight and purge the disease.

What was/is appropriate for the West to do, of course, is to search itself for reasons why and how a Hitler and his enablers could arise in the first place and do so much damage. That was done -- to morbid excess, and expressed itself in the mass irrationality of a dominant and mainstream PC MC that already was underway prior to Hitler, with roots going back centuries.

"Fjordman often points out that Scandinavia has no history of colonialism and enslavement, yet is a world leader in the self-engineered destruction by the black, brown and Muslim."

That should not puzzle anyone. Once a white society becomes a modern polity, it partakes of the general memes of its civilization. There may not have been any "nation-states" of Norway, Sweden and Finland during the Colonialist epoch, and their peoples may never have participated in Colonialism (though I'm not so sure of that), but insofar as they become modern Western nation-states, they share in the common pool of the general Weltanschauung (give or take). That's what makes the West an entity at all. If all the polities that compose the West all had dramatically different paradigms and Weltanschauungen, there would be no "West" to speak of in any meaningful sense. And at times, in the West's history, Balkanization did more or less wax and wane. The achievement of the modern West is in fact a cultural unification (remember, sophomores, I speak relatively, not absolutely) historically unprecedented. Unfortunately, co-incident with this unification has been PC MC -- and no: it's not some grand plan of evil Globalists. It's just an Accident that the Occident has become more unified than ever before and at the same time dominated by a particular paradigm shift of PC MC. We can reverse course, and we will -- because the metastasis of Islam will force us to, as a series of rude shocks in the coming decades. I just hope this little coterie of neo-Vikings within the AIM (the latter itself the nucleus of the coming Western Revival) doesn't amass enough influence to muck up the gears.

Plus it probably didn't hurt that the Canadian "conservatives" are supporters of mass Third World immigration, official multiculturalism, free speech-stifling "human rights" commissions, gay marriage, abortion on demand, etc etc.

Today's mainstream conservative or "right-wing" parties are indistinguishable from the left. The only difference is support for Israel and gun control (the US and Canada) and some blabbering about subsidiarity and regional autonomy (Europe). Otherwise, left or "right", they are fully, 100% committed to the premises of the proposition nation. More than that: it's an ideological beauty contest beween leftists and Republicans/Christian-Democrats about who's going to win the Multi-Kult Prize or the Replace-and-Destroy-Your-Own-People Award.

That's why voting patterns are irrelevant.

Besides, the only difference between Bolsheviks and our multi-kult oligarchs is that the Bolsheviks falsified the elections and the electoral process - while our politicians simply don't care about it. In almost every European country that held a referendum about the Lisbon Treaty, the Treaty was rejected - yet the Eurocrats pretended that nothing had happened and continued their plans with a straight face. Which means that deep down inside, Bolsheviks were still afraid of the will of the people (that's why they made the effort to falsify the result of the elections), while the multi-kult oligarchs don't give a damn and have no fear. There is no competition among them, we are ruled by an one-party system. Whoever wins the elections, the power remains in the family.

I generally have a lot of time and sympathy for your essays, but I cannot support your comments here at all.

You have not addressed one single point raised by the two commentators you lambast as 'dishonest debaters' - instead you embark upon a lengthy ad hom diatribe.

What do you actually think about the points raised by them? Provide substance on the points raised. It is on that basis one can form judgements in a debate, not by way of a substance less character assassination.

It is all too prevalent on the internet for dissenters to be labelled as 'trolls' or 'spammers' - indeed it is often the first resort, and of course this is always done to dehumanise dissenters and legitimise calls for what is clearly censorship, despite the protestations and mental gymnastics of the person calling for it.

This behaviour is always indicative of fear and of something to hide.

I personally think it is undeniable that many Jewish groups (and individuals) have long worked hard to dramatically alter the demographics and order of all nations made up of European peoples. The evidence for this is legion and pretty much incontrovertible - with some it already having been posted here.

Why they do this is more of a salient point.

My theory is that - even instinctively on an individual basis - they feel that they do not belong to 'western' society and culture and as such are easily identifiable in homogenous societies, and that that identity, coupled with their oft disproportionate influence in pillars of 'western' countries has led them to conclude that a completely 'diverse' and reordered 'west' is the solution to their problems.

Dear Baron, please wrangle together some of your famous prose and set the stage for this badly needed discussion.

No, I’m not willing to do that. I’d have to close the comments, which means the post wouldn’t be of much use, would it?

There are two topics which people seem to be unable to discuss civilly and reasonably, and those are Jews and Russia. And Serbia/Kosovo is almost as incendiary an issue. For some reason, people just can’t discuss these things, debate the facts, and argue on the merits. Almost inevitably the exchange devolves to heated rhetoric, insults, and name-calling.

Such posts take up a huge amount of my time monitoring the comments, which almost always have to be closed eventually. I decline to subject myself to another round of that pointless nonsense.

Which is too bad, because it would be worthwhile to have a real, reasoned debate on the role of progressive Jews and Jewish Marxists in creating the current Multicultural mess. However, I know from bitter experience what happens when that topic is raised — the thread is immediately co-opted by Jew-haters, by people whose central preoccupation, their very raison d’être, is the Jews.

When I try to control the nastiness in these discussions, to keep it within the rules for commenting on this blog, it is called “censorship”. And then I am called a “coward” for stifling the truth about the sinister, evil, and hidden machinations of the Jooooos.

And maybe I am. I’ve no way to prove that I’m not.

Or maybe I’m just sick of all this crap, and don’t have any time to spare to police the kindergarten food-fights that these things invariably descend to.

Chechar cites Albert Lindemann, as though Lindemann supports his thesis. I now present readers with a moment resembling the scene from Woody Allen's Annie Hall in which Woody Allen-- standing in line at a movie theater and having to suffer listening to some young intellectual in line going on and on about what Marshall MacLuhan "really" means -- puts up his hand, and says, "Hold on a minute", then pulls Marshall MacLuhan himself into the line who immediately tells the all-knowing intellectual "I'm Marshall MacLuhan -- and you're completely wrong about me."

This open letterby Lindemann to a critic I think clarifies that he had no intent in his book to justify antisemitism.

(And by the way, how could a respected professor in Academe publish and be mostly favorably reviewed by his peers in Academe if he were writing a tome that justified antisemitism -- if Jews control Academe?)

@Zenster, I agree that we should never let the counterjihad become infected with Jewish liberal memes that will empower our enemies and inevitably lead to the suicide of the West. It is *they* who have to come most of the way over to *us*, not the other way around. But I believe that some (hopefully temporary) compromises will be necessary to get the majority of Jews onside, just as the Canadian Conservatives have done in miraculously converting the Jews to their side after generations of Jews voting overwhelmingly for the Liberals or NDP (socialists).

I disagree with your lumping together of Jews and Muslims as groups that punch above their weight. Jews punch way, WAY above their weightclass, which is why I believe it's imperative that we get them aboard the conservative/counterjihad bandwagon, but Muslims are a low-intelligence, disorganized rabble, flyweights compared to the Jewish heavyweights. Everything the Muslims have in the West, including their very presence here, is due to the beneficence of white liberals (including Jews), not because of their own "skills" in extracting concessions from us.

More good news from the Canadian exit polls is that the Conservatives got only 11% of the Muslim vote, driving a wedge between these two hostile-to-us groups. My greatest fear is an anti-Western Judeo-Islamic alliance, burying their differences as they combine to bury us. That's why I think that Western conservative parties should not only support Israel, but support the most anti-Islamic and ethnonationalist elements within Israeli society. It's in our interests to see that there will NEVER be Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation or peace in the Middle East.

I'm sure that it rubs a lot of people the wrong way that in order to save the West, we have to ally ourselves with a group (the Jews) that is arguably most responsible for the precarious position that we find ourselves in. It certainly isn't my first choice. But at this late hour, I'm not really concerned with racial, religious or ideological purity. I just want to win.

We also see an interesting paradox (to put it generously) in many of the comments here, which may be summed up best in a brutal nutshell that exposes its preposterous unhingedness with this obsession about Jews:

1) The Jews who have this fantastic power of controlling the entire West are themselves doing anti-Jewish and therefore self-destructive things as part of their grand plan

2) The Jews who have this fantastic power of controlling the entire West are motivated by their hatred of the white non-Jewish West and are trying to destroy it.

Seeing such torturous thought patterns disgorge themselves of their welter of irrationally pulsating organ failure is a reminder of how it is that otherwise intelligent cultured Westerners could have devolved into a Nazi Germany that went about producing systematic factories of mass murder of certain groups whom they deemed, in their feverishly hectic yet intellectually cold paranoia, to be pernicious diseases whose mass degradation, torture and elimination became thus justified.

The comment by The Sentinel above provides another wrinkle on the interesting paradox (to put it generously), one that at least provides a moment of (unintentional) humorous relief. Quote:

My theory [for why Jews are machinating with their fantastic powers to undermine the entire West] is that - even instinctively on an individual basis - they feel that they do not belong to 'western' society and culture and as such are easily identifiable in homogenous societies, and that that identity, coupled with their oft disproportionate influence in pillars of 'western' countries has led them to conclude that a completely 'diverse' and reordered 'west' is the solution to their problems.

Notice the contradiction here: How could (or, more pertinently, Why would) a group who has fantastic powers to control the entire West have any "problems" that necessitate a "solution" -- if they are already in control of all Western institutions (academic, political, media, economic, military and popular culture)!?

2) The Jews who have this fantastic power of controlling the entire West are motivated by their hatred of the white non-Jewish West and are trying to destroy it.

Sorry, Hesperado, but I can't see this line of thinking anywhere in this thread. No "conspiracy", "fantastic power" or anything of this sort.

Let's go back to the title of Fjordman's essay: our primary enemy is the proposition nation, not Islam. Which means: our primary enemy is the idea that a people is a mere accidental conglomerate of groups, united by an idea - and that idea might be "Liberté, égalité, fraternité", the Constitution, the melting pot, the civic nation, etc. This is the surest path to multi-kult self-immolation (what we live today). Instead, a nation should be defined by ethnicity - racial, cultural, linguistical, historical, religious homogeneity (well, it has never existed in a pure form, like 100% homogenous, but that's the starting point to define a community).

So, the points are:1) the proposition nation is an uniquely Western creation and its roots can be found in the Enlightenment, possibly in some aspects of Christianity.2) the core idea of the proposition nation is universalism/ the existence of an universal morality (like in Kant's "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.")3) the proposition nation fails to take into account the genetical, cultural, religious, etc. differences among people. It assumes that everybody would follow a behavior that can become universal law.4) considering the above points, when the Western proposition nation incorporates a group that is traditionally ethno-centric and tribalistic (does not apply Kantian reciprocity because something similar never existed in their history), that group will exploit and use the proposition nation for their benefit. Jews are a group of this kind. Muslims, Blacks, Gypsies, Hispanics are other groups. Well, Jews, being more intelligent, will target the upper strata of the society, others will live on theft or other forms of criminality, on welfare state or striking fear in the hearts of the infidels, but the bottom line with the proposition nation is: kids, never try this at home. It's been a historical blunder.

See? No fantastic power here. It's just the power given to them by the Idea Nation. Or just the power given to them by us. In this sense yes, we are guilty of poor judgement.

After labelling dissenters as 'trolls' and 'spammers', the next usual suspects in internet debates are the prevalent use of 'strawmen' and desperate attempts at what the poster believes to be mockery.

Nowhere did I say that Jews were "a group who has fantastic powers to control the entire West" - that is purely your own invention. And there is a word for those kind of inventions.

What I actually said was that Jews have an "oft disproportionate influence in pillars of 'western' countries" - and they have and they do. If you really dispute this, I can quite easily put you straight with dozens of examples; as I am sure can many others here.

Quite why you felt compelled to claim to address my comment, but then not actually address any of it in substance, merely inventing and attacking a position I didn't postulate - I will leave for others to draw their own conclusions.

If you really are interested in debate, why not direct your energies to commenting on facts and debating those?

Maybe you would wish to start with an historical essay on Jewish involvement in US immigration policy that has already been linked to in this comments box?

In addition, it is also demonstrable that lots of prominent Jewish groups and individuals equate white interest in white ethnic issues with 'racism' and 'Nazism' and espouse multiculturism for us as a cure for that 'evil', whilst themselves maintaining the worlds only genetic based nation and decry 'assimilation' for Jews.

And by the way, my grandparents fought against the Nazis, and my country bankrupted itself doing so - so I need listen to no lectures on you about Nazis nor do need I feel any guilt for speaking my mind, presenting facts and for being aware of that the very survival of my people is under threat.

"What was/is appropriate for the West to do, of course, is to search itself for reasons why and how a Hitler and his enablers could arise in the first place and do so much damage."

And then provides his own colorfully rendered answer:

"Seeing such torturous thought patterns disgorge themselves of their welter of irrationally pulsating organ failure is a reminder of how it is that otherwise intelligent cultured Westerners could have devolved into a Nazi Germany that went about producing systematic factories of mass murder of certain groups whom they deemed, in their feverishly hectic yet intellectually cold paranoia, to be pernicious diseases whose mass degradation, torture and elimination became thus justified."

This is, more or less, historian Richard Evans' conclusion as well (although he does not utilize a florid, rhetorical prose style and thus renders a more well-articulated description of the subject matter in question) , to wit: National Socialist heavyweights regarded Jews with fear and hatred commensurate with the former's belief that the latter were an existential threat to the long-term survival of the German people.

I don't doubt that that is how National Socialists regarded Jews (with fear and hatred grounded in their understanding of the threat they believed Jews posed to their people), although I am quite sceptical of the traditional Holocaust narrative.

I will refrain from offering my own opinion as to the actual threat, if any, Jews pose to the long-term survival of those of European descent. There is a question which interests me more, and should interest you as well, Hesperado, as it is of foundational importance. Is not the continuity of life itself an ultimate interest - one which supersedes in importance all other interests? The answer to that question is self-evidently "Yes" for without life no other interests can be experience nor pursued. Having asked and definitively answered that most important of all questions we are given a window into the mind that would defend the life which he regards as being an essential part of himself with uppermost tenacity...and concluded with him that this would be rational.

Re: Dear Baron, please wrangle together some of your famous prose and set the stage for this badly needed discussion.

Baron has given you his reply but I have a comment you'll find interesting. I like American Renaissance because of the yeoman work it's doing in simply collating and posting news stories that deal with cultural enrichment sieved for race. It's sort of what you'll find here with respect to enrichment by Islam. So I asked the AmRen people whether they would consider starting a similar website doing a similar thing relative to Jews. Of course one would have to disentangle news reporting to discover the Jewish identity of the stories' subjects, just as it has to be done to get behind what "young people," "les jeunes," "flash mob" etc. stand for.

AmRen declined. It's radioactive territory. It's Hitler and his ideological descendants who have made it so. It's the dynamic duo of posters here why tried to start that discussion -- and they disciples of the "Doctor" from Kiev (Duke) and the professor from Long Beach (MacDonald) --that have made it radioactive. Moreover, there are already dozens of such websites run by Neonazis, and they link to such stories. But mixed among those stories is so much toxic garbage, ostensibly false history, paranoid schizophrenic theorizing etc. that only the faithful can read all that without gagging.

Sometimes, the Jew haters provide hilarious inadvertent entertainment while their aim is to convert you to their POV. For instance, there was an antisemitic Polish website called Polonica.net that carried, among others, a very long list of important Poles who were really Jews. Or "really." So you could discover there and laugh at the allegation that half of Poland's presidents and PMs have been Jews, including side-splitting inventions like "Les Walesa is really the ex-snitch Jojna Kochne".

But you could also discover, and after research verify, that Poland's greatest composers (e.g. Chopin), national bards (Mickiewicz), novelists and artists, scientists and mathematicians were either Jews, part Jews, or married to Jews. And that's not something you would have known prior to coming to that website. So if you were whole of mind, upon leaving Polonica.net instead of feeling revulsion toward Jewish communist malefactors who were properly pointed out there, and coming to support its call "Jews out of Catholic Poland!", you felt that Jews are and have been an inextricable and valuable building block of Poland.

The lying and history-falsifying antisemites are making it impossible to deal with a subject that badly needs dealing with, as a daily tally of the doings of Jews in the US Congress, Democratic Party, the academia and Hollywood can confirm. This is poisoned territory, and it’s too bad.

It is only paradoxical if one's understand is limited or described as such for rhetoric's sake.

"The Jews who have this fantastic power of controlling the entire West are themselves doing anti-Jewish and therefore self-destructive things as part of their grand plan"

The power Jews have in the West is not infinite, though considerable. The way in which they wield their power is based in a tragically mistaken view of what are the real threats to their interests. One of the interests they seek to defend is the maintenance of the (finite - though considerable) power they hold in the West.

Do you contend that Jews have no power in the West and that Jews do not use what power they have to defend themselves against what they perceive as threats to their interests? That would be odd indeed.

"The Jews who have this fantastic power of controlling the entire West are motivated by their hatred of the white non-Jewish West and are trying to destroy it."

This only makes sense if one contends that Jews believe the basis for their power in the West is rooted in maintaining the ethnic/racial composition of the West. Clearly, Jews do not believe that, in fact, the contrary.

I am somewhat surprised to find my previous comments deleted, as they were more civil and on topic than the angry ad hominem which came in response. If my comments violated this blog's comment policy I would like to understand how.

Baron Bodissey: Which is too bad, because it would be worthwhile to have a real, reasoned debate on the role of progressive Jews and Jewish Marxists in creating the current Multicultural mess.

It certainly is too bad but your reasons are perfectly clear and equally understandable. Thank you anyway.

I guess we'll have to give it a go in this thread even at the risk of derailing it. Much of the groundwork has been laid already and this is far too important of a topic to let fall by the wayside.

I suppose it would be particularly useful if any elements of the Propositional or Idea Nation could be validly attributed to Jewish elements. All of this gets exceptionally odd in that, as Rosalie so aptly noted:

Actually, Israel is a good model and example about how an ethnostate for Europeans should look like.

Yet, the West continues to suffer from some degree of Jewish supported blanket immigration policies that are both deconstructing modern civilization and fueling global jihad to their own exceptional detriment.

Others here have speculated that one strategy may simply be to so totally divide or dilute Western Christian populations such that they are wholly incapable of mounting any repetition of the Holocaust.

Despite a modicum of relevance, I find that this notion smacks a bit too much of Jewish Cabal Conspiracy hysterics and so am obliged to wonder what other explanations unravel this conundrum to a larger and more satisfying extent.

As I noted earlier, even so deeply ingrained of an ostensibly positive societal trait like tikkun olam cannot possibly explain how post-modern Liberal Jews are facilitating the spread of their most dire enemy, Islam. If there is one body of people whose institutional memory should forbid this, it would be the Jews.

The incredible aspect of this is only compounded by how the Holocaust should have only served to reinforce Jewish awareness of Islam's genocidal intent. All of this should be further entrenched by Islam's admiration for Hitler and the favored Muslim practice of portraying Jews as Nazis in order to conceal Islam's own genocidal doctrine.

Even these past centuries of Church-based Antisemitism do not adequately justify the shortsightedness required for Jews to so obsessively focus on Christian wrongdoing to the almost total exclusion of a far more enduring and proportionally dangerous enemy such as Islam.

"It's radioactive territory. It's Hitler and his ideological descendants who have made it so."

If it were up to "Hitler and his ideological descendants" the topic of Jews as relates to the interests of European-derived people would not be "radioactive" but in fact predominate in public discourse. The station of most in life is that of suggestibility, and as such they believe as they are given to believe in a particular time - as you know full well. The reason why Nazism is perceived as "radioactive" and inextricably linked with even the most modest defense of the interests of European-derived people is that *those with the power* to promulgate that perception do. Those who now hold the power to mold public opinion in the West are clearly not ideological Nazis, yet you imply that ideological Nazis are to be blamed for rendering discussion of Jewish power "radioactive".

The only other reasonable interpretation of the thrust of your statement which I quote is that the excesses of Nazism did and do induce a natural reaction of overpowering moral revulsion in most Westerners that precludes even their considering issues which are associated (by those with the power to make that association) with Nazism. Yet upon further reflection, this is an interpretation which is plausible only on the surface. Why? Very simply, if Westerners were intrinsically disposed to overpowering moral revulsion to the likes of Nazism then Nazism could never have taken root in the first place, or at least never have risen to what you contend was its crescendo of slaughter. (Or else you will be forced to assert that Germans are inherently morally debased.)

We are then left with contemporary opinion shapers and not ideological Nazis as the only party which can reasonably be blamed for rendering discussion of Jewish power verboten.

"Wattenberg argues that the USA, far from being in decline, is on the brink of great advances. He believes that the diversity of American society, including people from all over the world, make it the most dynamic and creative nation on earth."

Rosalie: 3) the proposition nation … assumes that everybody would follow a behavior that can become universal law.

Bravo, Rosalie! Your post (at 6/11/2011 12:46 PM), really keeps this thread on track but also addresses core issues of why the PCMC paradigm has spread so far and wide on Western shores, even to the extent of becoming poisonous.

The predominance of Mosaic law in an overwhelming majority of Christian and Jewish sects may have midwifed, to some degree, an emergence in Judeo-Christian Western cultures of moral and cultural relativism.

Through no fault of its own, Judeo-Christian culture has managed to sustain a sufficient level of commonality in its moral code whereby it is no surprise that a sense of universality might arise after several centuries of this shared belief structure.

The unparalleled success of Western civilization would only serve to cement the perception of its moral code as being one worthy of universality, not to mention actually being regarded simply as such without much further question.

Finally, the robust nature of Low Context culture such as we have in the West also inhibits our ability to comprehend something so alien as Islam's stratospherically High Context structure. This certainly goes a long way towards explaining the supposedly traditional "inscrutability" of Asian cultures and the overall blind spot which the West continues to present with in terms of thinking sufficiently "outside the box" as to actually understand even the most basic aspects of Islam.

Nowhere did I say that Jews were "a group who has fantastic powers to control the entire West" - that is purely your own invention. And there is a word for those kind of inventions.

What I actually said was that Jews have an "oft disproportionate influence in pillars of 'western' countries" - and they have and they do.

And avenger, also objecting to my rhetorical exaggeration, wrote:

The power Jews have in the West is not infinite, though considerable.

These kinds of responses tread closely on sophistry. I don't know the formal logical term for the fallacy involved, but in layman's terms, what is going on is:

A person says, "I'm not saying ALL X is bad; all I'm saying is that a whole lot of X are bad."

Then, when trying to understand what a "whole lot" translates into, one finds that it may well entail a majority that is functionally a totality enjoying the ample elbow room of a massive fudge factor always defensible, so the defender thinks, by insisting "I never said "ALL"..."

The fact remains that certain people here ascribe such powers to Jews that, also given the minuscule numbers of Jews, acquire an endowment of superhuman qualities to Jews. Whether it's "all" Jews or "most" Jews is a sophistical distraction.

The closely related ascription of nefarious (i.e., evil) motives to Jews for pursuing PC MC policies and objectives, in its turn, suffers from the problem that most other Western groups do the same thing. So are we going to expand the evilness ofthe conspiracy to embrace most Christians, agnostics, atheists, New Agers, and pagans as well? Or are we going to say that all these latter groups are somehow being fantastically duped by a comparatively tiny number of Jews?

Takuan Seiyo: That's why I always point out how closely the Christian contribution to PCMC parallels the Jewish one.

I would certainly enjoy reading what you think of the connection I have made in my last post concerning the predominance of Mosaic law within Judeo-Christian Western cultures and its gradual ascription of universality to such a degree whereby it has helped spawn an understandable but harmful sense of relativism.

I suppose it would be particularly useful if any elements of the Propositional or Idea Nation could be validly attributed to Jewish elements. All of this gets exceptionally odd in that, as Rosalie so aptly noted:

Actually, Israel is a good model and example about how an ethnostate for Europeans should look like.

The proposition nation is obviously a creation of the European Enlightenment (with older roots, but that's a different discussion) and it can be attributed entirely to the Europeans, the Jews were not involved in any form here. Actually, it's alien to the non-European psyche, including the Jewish one - that's why when the dream of a Jewish state came true, the founders of Israel chose the ethnostate model. And that's the reason Africans, Asians, Muslims, etc. don't accept on their soil propositional-nation ideas - sometimes they mimic it because this is the (PC Western-influenced) Zeitgeist, but they never take it seriously (illegal immigration and insane multiculturalism are unthinkable even in the economically developed, Westernised Japan).

But the proposition nation can be exploited precisely by those who don't take it seriously, including the Jews (open borders for you - ethnostate for me, and I want you to support my ethnostate while opening your borders!). Sooner or later, it becomes a tool for group entitlement. That's why all the immigrants who come in the West feel entitled to social benefits, special rights, special protection, special attention to their group agenda, since they step for the first time on Western soil.

If you reread my sentences you quote, and place them in the context of the rest of my post, you will see that the inferences you have drawn are not the only ones that can be made. Let’s forget Hitler and the Third Reich, unless we want to spend 20 hours on this, which I can’t. Let’s start from VNN, Duke, MacDonald, O’Meara, Johnson et al. They all air legitimate group grievances against Jews. But they mix so much false information, half-truths and deletions of inconvenient truths into their arguments that it undermines the legitimacy of the arguments. And by tying it all in a grand theory that’s a direct descendant of Hitler’s if wrapped in updated Darwinian lingo, they spike the entire territory with radioactive pellets. That illegitimacy and radioactivity cling to anyone else trying to dig in the same patch.

Of course it’s contemporary opinion makers and enforcers – quite a few of them Jewish – who shunted the whole topic off to verboten territory. But the real problem is that anyone who would publicly and credibly defy that taboo must first defend himself and prove how he is different from the above Jewphobes and, yes, from Hitler. And that is a daunting and costly task that few can afford. If this territory had not been poisoned by the manifest bias of the Jew-haters, there would have been no need for this and the taboo enforcers could be beaten back easily and convincingly.

By the time Blogger let me post, most of my points have been addressed by others. Nevertheless, I'll still try to post this because it may add a slightly different approach to the mix.

Takuan makes an interesting point which, from my observations, is true. When some Jewish leaders have taken a "multi-culti" action that they are aware is against the best interests of Jews, they feel that this just demonstrates how moral and ethical they are.

[Now you Jew haters, please don't try to claim that I'm saying that all Jewish leaders act in this fashion, or in any other fashion, all the time]

Like all Liberals, they feel that they are highly moral, ethical people who support the Good (even if many don't really believe in Evil anymore) by extending a helping hand to others in need, both within and outside the United States. Jews probably give more to charities than any other group with the possible exception of the Mormons who are tithed.

This point of view is consistent with--some would say exemplifies--what many consider to be one of the best, most transcendent aspects of Christian civilization and culture.

'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'" -Matthew 25:41-45

I agree with Takuan, as high-minded and uplifting as this may be, it is now leading us toward disaster.

There is a time and place for everyting. Everything has its season.

In the 1960 book "The Morning of the Magicians," authors Louis Pauwels and Jacque Bergier (Jews I think) pointed out that that if one takes any one of the major ideas underlying Western Civilization and distorts it by abrogating or denying other important ideas, one creates a monster. They claim that the Third Reich was an example of this.

Once again you haven't addressed one single point, nor even attempted at engaging in substantive debate.

Everyone here can quite clearly see that you assigned a position to me that I didn't myself make. You quite literally invented statements and accredited them to me. That is what you did and no end of empty verbosity will change that.

What I said was quite clear: Jews often have a disproportionate influence on the pillars of the 'west.' This is a fact. Both historically and contemporarily - be it lobby groups such as AIPAC, CFI etc or the media (in 2006, 5 out of the 6 major media companies were headed by a Jew) or banking houses, Goldman Sachs, Rothschilds etc and in politics - the neo-cons, behind two wars.

If you bother to read the historical essay linked to above, you can see just in one country - the US - how many of these elements combine to exert influence on policy.

You see the keyword here: Influence.

That many Jewish groups have quite deliberately exerted considerable influence in the immigration policies of nations people by Europeans is undeniable - that many Jewish groups are the most vocal in condemning as racist any attempt - however small and feeble - of whites to organise as a group or identify as a clan is undeniable. That many Jewish groups have been at the forefront - indeed the instigators - of the absurd and anti-freedom 'hate speech / crimes' legislation is undeniable.

That everyone has heard of the Holocaust but very, very few have ever heard of the Holodomor - because the former has copious amounts of books, films, documentaries and museums whilst the later has none - is undeniable.

There are so many aspects to this issue that are beyond reasonable dispute that there should be enormous grounds for a proper, reasoned and factual debate - you have no need of strawmen here.

Re: Predominance of Mosaic law within Judeo-Christian Western cultures and its gradual ascription of universality to such a degree whereby it has helped spawn an understandable but harmful sense of relativism.

I don't think that Mosaic law has much to do with it. What Christians are doing is a result of their interpretation of the Jesuic law and of Jesus himself, per the Pauline view. And what Jews are doing is the result of their loss of faith in the Old Religion and in the Bible itself, and conversion to secular humanism as a substitute for the former, and the Talmud as a substitute for the latter.

jeppo: It is *they* who have to come most of the way over to *us*, not the other way around.

Fair enough. There's way too much psychic baggage being lugged around by the Jews for us to take on any more of a (White Man's) Burden than we have already.

But I believe that some (hopefully temporary) compromises will be necessary to get the majority of Jews onside…

It would be interesting to see your strategy for this. I welcome any elaboration upon your part as this is central to the useful side argument that has arisen in this thread.

I disagree with your lumping together of Jews and Muslims as groups that punch above their weight.

I was noting a common trait and not equating their behavior, that is all.

Jews punch way, WAY above their weightclass, which is why I believe it's imperative that we get them aboard the conservative/counterjihad bandwagon…

No arguments save for those already in place.

… but Muslims are a low-intelligence, disorganized rabble, flyweights compared to the Jewish heavyweights.

Need we trot out the Nobel Prize statistics or can we simply stipulate a case of violent agreement?

Everything the Muslims have in the West, including their very presence here, is due to the beneficence of white liberals (including Jews), not because of their own "skills" in extracting concessions from us.

By and large yes, but the entire quagmire is only exacerbated by centuries of an ingrained looting mentality among Muslims that only enhances their ability to suck dry the West's own lifeblood.

My greatest fear is an anti-Western Judeo-Islamic alliance, burying their differences as they combine to bury us.

Ain't gonna happen. Embracing the Jews would require Islam to divest itself of so much propagandist capital that it would lose much of its original impetus.

That's why I think that Western conservative parties should not only support Israel, but support the most anti-Islamic and ethnonationalist elements within Israeli society. It's in our interests to see that there will NEVER be Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation or peace in the Middle East.

Such a reconciliation will never happen anyway. Any resolution of the Arab-Israeli crisis would signify a total failure of jihad. Furthermore, it would also require some degree of accepting responsibility for the naqbah (literally "catastrophe" of Israel's formation).

Finally, without the Arab-Israeli crisis serving as a perpetual whipping boy, regional Muslim leadership would have to make good on their promise of implementing good governance practices that have been habitually deferred until full resolution has been achieved with respect to this interminable, self-inflicted and wholly desired Islamo-crisis.

I'm sure that it rubs a lot of people the wrong way that in order to save the West, we have to ally ourselves with a group (the Jews) that is arguably most responsible for the precarious position that we find ourselves in. It certainly isn't my first choice. But at this late hour, I'm not really concerned with racial, religious or ideological purity. I just want to win.

Works for me. I have long maintained the exact same position with regard to Christianity allying itself with other legitimate world faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism and so forth plus finding some sort of common ground with Agnostics and Atheists as well.

All who have even a scintilla of respect for freedom of belief and conscience had best begin some serious outreach so that Islam is presented with the united front that, alone, has any hope of thwarting Muslim aspirations for a global caliphate.

Strange as it may sound, I am not asserting that Mosaic law, in and of itself, is responsible for this.

It is its shared or common modality among Judeo-Christian that lent a sense of overarching continuity and universality to modern, low context Western cultures which then helped spawn the latter disease of relativism.

For you to assert the counter arguments of your interlocutors are quasi-sophistic and for that to actually be the case are not necessarily the same thing. And in this case, they are indeed not the same thing.

I will not in turn accuse you of sophistry, though it would be easy, and I could make the charge stick. That would truly be "tedious".

"The fact remains that certain people here ascribe such powers to Jews that, also given the minuscule numbers of Jews, acquire an endowment of superhuman qualities to Jews."

Is that really the best you've got? If so, it ain't much.

How can a man not powerful enough to shift a boulder under his own unaided strength shift said boulder? He can use a lever, that is, he can use leverage. Having done that, having acquired that amplification of his own abilities, is the man in question now imbued with "superhuman qualities"? Surely not. Yet by precisely the same reasoning we can, at least logically and within the realm of possibility, establish that Jews could wield power disproportionate to their numbers. They could do it with leverage. The leverage that could be had by possessing the levers of representation diproportionate to their numbers in media, finance, academia, law, etc.

"The closely related ascription of nefarious (i.e., evil) motives to Jews for pursuing PC MC policies and objectives, in its turn, suffers from the problem that most other Western groups do the same thing."

I don't recall saying that other groups besides Jews don't pursue objectives that are detrimental to the West, and would in fact concede the point. What I would contend is that Jews are better organized, financed and have more power (better leverage by virtue of more and better levers) with which to pursue their objectives, some of these objectives being detrimental to the West.

on-my-own-in-berkeley: … if one takes any one of the major ideas underlying Western Civilization and distorts it by abrogating or denying OR DE-EMPHASIZING other important ideas, one creates a monster.

I believe that this is what we are seeing today with respect to suicidal Christian altruism and how it has been stripped of the historically protective Church Militant aspect which steered Christianity away from the exact excesses that are currently causing it to self-immolate.

Rosalie: But the proposition nation can be exploited precisely by those who don't take it seriously, including the Jews (open borders for you - ethnostate for me, and I want you to support my ethnostate while opening your borders!).

An excellent point that you have justifiably repeated. The full implications of which are really starting to hack me off.

America is allowing itself to be held to a double standard of monstrous proportions and toxic consequences. Basta ya!

Yes, agree with that formulation. But there is something else, and I’ve written 12,000 words about it and sought to publish them as a 3-fer at various Christian websites to be turned down or shrugged off by all in turn. European peoples had a connectedness to the soil, the river and the forest that protected them from hi-falutin’ universalism and self-defeating idealism. That natural antidote was extirpated by the early Church that persecuted autochthon apostates, pagans, “witches” etc. with the same zeal it did the Jews. Some of that earthiness has remained in the Slavic and East-Baltic cultures. You will find that the Orthodox are better protected against Progressivism than Catholics are, and Estonian Lutherans are far less dhimmified than the Swedish ones are.

"They all air legitimate group grievances against Jews. But they mix so much false information, half-truths and deletions of inconvenient truths into their arguments that it undermines the legitimacy of the arguments. And by tying it all in a grand theory"

Seiyo is projecting his own bad faith and dishonesty onto others. Here, for example, he provides no links, no quotes to support his claims. He provides his own sweeping statements and then demands that inconvenient viewpoints be suppressed. He justifies his hatred for others with his own grand theory of irrational, spontaneous jew-hate. He blames others for sowing "radioactivity" that he himself is sowing right here in full view.

I didn’t say that Lindemann “supports my thesis” or that he “justifies antisemitism”. Instead of paraphrasing or interpreting him as I did before, let’s quote him directly from the “Epilogue and Conclusions” of Esau’s Tears: “Again, the most obvious factor to take into consideration in trying to account for the growth of modern anti-Semitism—though not of course its deepest origins—is the rise of the Jews. It was not a fantasy but rather a perfectly real, measurable, and understandable development” (page 537).

Lindemann’s is exactly the opposite thesis of Taksei’s, who seems to regard all sort of anti-Semitism as “paranoid taboos or psychopathic sectarianism”, his words.

@ AmRen declined. It's radioactive territory. It's Hitler and his ideological descendants who have made it so. It's the dynamic duo of posters here why tried to start that discussion… that have made it radioactive. —Taksei

Since I am one of the “dynamic duo” (presumably Robin!) I feel compelled to respond. Is Taksei saying that I am the one who’s making this subject “radioactive” by using works with academic imprimatur (yes, incredibly: academic imprimaturs on studies of the JQ in these PC times)? Why don’t you just read Lindemann’s book and/or reply to MacDonald’s scholarly paper, also linked by The Sentinel? Why are you making this fuss, this enormous smokescreen to avoid that GoV-ers like Zenster et al finally find a forum to discuss the JQ?

Baron,

Do you realize that a major intellectual in counter-jihad is apparently conscious of the JQ? If Srdja Trifković submitted an article on the JQ would GoV reject it only to avoid a potentially flaming debate (but again, who have behaved more impolitely in this thread, the “dynamic duo” or our opponents)? Anyway, I respect your decision. Those interested in discussing the JQ in a non-flaming forum may try Counter-Currents, which doesn’t allow flaming and precisely today is celebrating its first year anniversary.

"Let’s start from VNN, Duke, MacDonald, O’Meara, Johnson et al. They all air legitimate group grievances against Jews. But they mix so much false information, half-truths and deletions of inconvenient truths into their arguments that it undermines the legitimacy of the arguments."

I think that the meat of what those you mention say boils down to the contention that Jews are culturally/genetically irredemable subverters and destoyers of the conditions necessary to sustain the life of European-derived people. Either this is true or it is not. I hope it is not. But even if it is - if those proclivities are founded in Jewish genetics - there is the possibility of suppressing those tendencies with gentle measures as could yet achieve the desired effect. The desired effect of suppressing Jewish subversion of the societies of European-derived people. This is so because in the final analysis Jews have what power European-derived people allow them to have. And if it is a matter of existential import to European-derived people that they must limit Jewish power then that they must do.

Of course individuals of fully or partially Jewish ancestry will have a vested interest in limiting the means European-derived people employ to defend themselves against Jewish ethnic aggresion; even unto attempting to render those means ineffective if they deem it necessary to the interests of their Jewish people. This is the truth written on your own heart, as well as Hesperado's. I do understand that. Were I of fully or partially Jewish ancestry I would be inclined to do the same thing. Only I am not, I am of fully Northern European descent - so therefore, the bulk of my concern is for the survival and prosperity of Northern Europeans.

Tanstaafl: Seiyo is projecting his own bad faith and dishonesty onto others.

You will need to explain how such misconduct benefits one of the Internet's most capable writers and someone who clearly has no need for such artifice.

Here, for example, he provides no links, no quotes to support his claims.

By extension, are we then to presume that a huge proportion of pro-Nazi websites do not cheerfully blend an unhealthy dose of misinformation in with the dribs and drabs of their possibly accurate data?

Let's indulge in a swift and informative litmus test:

Do you, Tanstaafl, categorically and comprehensively reject “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”?

Yes or no? No mincing of words. No qualifications. No hemming or hawing. Yes or no, please?

He provides his own sweeping statements and then demands that inconvenient viewpoints be suppressed.

A statement that runs contrary to every exchange and experience I have had with TakSey.

@ Let’s start from VNN, Duke, MacDonald, O’Meara, Johnson et al. They all air legitimate group grievances against Jews. But they mix so much false information, half-truths and deletions of inconvenient truths into their arguments that it undermines the legitimacy of the arguments… If this territory had not been poisoned by the manifest bias of the Jew-haters, there would have been no need for this and the taboo enforcers could be beaten back easily and convincingly.

Now it doesn’t look that you have even read the MacDonald paper linked several times in this thread nor the works of the white nationalists you mention above. To show GoV readers how you are misrepresenting them I will only quote from O’Meara’s latest book, Toward the White Republic: “Our people face extinction not because the Jews or the liberals monopolize the media… This is a big part of it, to be sure, but to see things solely—or principally—in these terms is to overlook the last two or three centuries of Western history” (pp. 95-6).

But how easy it is to elevate an enormous smokescreen when you have nothing really substantial to say, right?

RebelliousVanilla (what happened with this regular GoV-er by the way, I miss the precocious nymphet:) told you at Mangan’s some time ago: “Oh, and the same pathetic excuse that you use for the behaviour of Jews could be used for Nazis. The Jews killed a lot of people in Soviet Russia with the favourite pet ideology they had at the time, communism. I wouldn't excuse neither of the two though.”

Defending the Jews is not my life's mission the way defaming them is MacDonald's and your platoon commander's. I have no time for this. I tried for a day or two to pry you away from that group, but gave up. Please go on with whatever you believe and do. I don't raid the websites where you post, however much I might disagree with them and with you. If you raid those where I post, I have no choice but to put you on the spot.

As to the larger weltanschauung to which you subscribe, it's been rebuked and disproved so many times since the Dreyfuss trial, the Beilis trial and the Protocols, the no man who values his time wants to deal with people who continue in that particular windup toy march. I have expressed myself once concerning MacDonald, and so has another rightist writer, John Derbyshire, as have a number of academics about whom I don't know much. That will have to do for now, until somebody appears who gets paid to spend 10 years of his life to deal with the arguments that it took MacDonald probably 20-25 years to marshall while on a professor's salary.

"You will need to explain how such misconduct benefits one of the Internet's most capable writers and someone who clearly has no need for such artifice."

If the MacDonald thesis is true - that Jews are genetically disposed to subvert to dominate their host societies - and this truth eventually became the accepted truth, then that would be damaging, to whatever degree, to Jewish interests as it would fully merit at least some measures taken by European-derived people to defend themselves against Jewish ethnic aggression. Therefore, those concerned for the interests of Jews would have an interest in suppressing that alleged truth. This would include their claiming that it were not true, even if they themselves believed it to be true, as act of noble lying. A noble lie told in defense of Jews - a cause which they considered to be noble.

Would you lie if you deemed it necessary to defend your own family? Of course you would.

If the MacDonald thesis is true - that Jews are genetically disposed to subvert to dominate their host societies -

Actually this is not what MacDonald says, and that's why he is misunderstood and blamed by so many. Basically, he defines Judaism as a "group survival strategy" which, combined with the genetic differences between Jews and Europeans plus the high intelligence and high verbal skills of the Jews make them perfect (so to speak) material to subvert the host societies, the main instigators of the "culture of critique".

So, it's not the genes or some sort of genetical inclination to act this way (then it would be indeed Nazi-like).

Rather, it's a combination of factors:1) The Chosen (and the perpetual persecuted) doctrine that can be found in Judaism - which means a state of permanent cold war with the surrounding population2) the awareness of being genetically (and not only) different from Europeans3) high intelligence = capacity to follow and reach their goals.

That's it. While debatable, it's far from being as bad as it's usually believed.

May I suggest that your kind a philosophizin 'n avengin' also seems misplaced in a general accessibility site like this? To ensure that no content you read is subversive or otherwise inimical to people of wholly Northern European descent, you should really confine yourself to forums restricted to Northern Europeans, with admission conditioned on the ratio of your skull's vertical axis to its horizontal one and the results of a DNA test.

It would behoove Takuan and Hesperado to confess the interest they have in defending the Jewish people by dint of their Jewish ancestry even if they must be forced to admit to themselves that this defense would be perceived as unmerited by them were they of fully European descent. It is painfully obvious anyway. And there is nothing they need fear by admitting it if this pronouncement is received by good men. Men who wish no harm to Jews, inspite of all they know, and wish no part for themselves in that which is fundamentally indecent - Nazism.

It would behoove Takuan and Hesperado to confess the interest they have in defending the Jewish people by dint of their Jewish ancestry even if they must be forced to admit to themselves that this defense would be perceived as unmerited by them were they of fully European descent. It is painfully obvious anyway. And there is nothing they need fear by admitting it if this pronouncement is received by good men. Men who wish no harm to Jews, inspite of all they know, and wish no part for themselves in that which is fundamentally indecent - Nazism.

When some Jewish leaders have taken a "multi-culti" action that they are aware is against the best interests of Jews, they feel that this just demonstrates how moral and ethical they are.

Concerning the problem of Islam, Christians do the same thing, as do agnostics and atheists, Leftists and Conservatives (not to mention innumerable idiot Hindus in India and idiot Buddhists in Asia) -- all are endangered by Muslims; and all do exactly what supposedly ONLY Jews are doing.

Well now, I will confess to declaiming a bit of folksy wisdom. But avengin'? Nah. Though the name is snappy.

I find that establishing through reason first principles is a mode of debate more interesting than opaque advocacy of ethnic interest, accusations and counter accusations of moral depravity and mental illness, and arcane citation. I prefer to put my cards, all of them, on the table. But you and Tan can feel free to go at it until you are blue in the face.

Hesperado's hyper-verbose pretensions are a thing easily dispensed with by those who can actually think (I mean myself, of course), as you have seen.

Anyhoo, have fun slaying the Nazi boogeyman and attacking the Islamic paper tiger.

Concerning the problem of Islam, Christians do the same thing, as do agnostics and atheists, Leftists and Conservatives (not to mention innumerable idiot Hindus in India and idiot Buddhists in Asia) -- all are endangered by Muslims; and all do exactly what supposedly ONLY Jews are doing.

Again. Tedious.

Hesperado, you are hilarious. Really, comic gem. You haven't understood yet that the topic of this thread is not Islam, but the proposition nation. You look like an old man in a techno-trance club, blinded by the lights, deafened by the sound, unable to understand what is going on around, who keeps repeating "Islam, Islam, Islam".

At least read, for God's sake, the title of the above essay: "Why the Propostion Nation, not Islam, Is Our Primary Enemy". Do you have a logically articulate opinion about that (not a storm of words)?

“Again, the most obvious factor to take into consideration in trying to account for the growth of modern anti-Semitism—though not of course its deepest origins—is the rise of the Jews. It was not a fantasy but rather a perfectly real, measurable, and understandable development”

The exact same words could be used to describe the rise of anti-Kafir hatred among Muslims. Does that make the Kafirs at all blameworthy, or really causers of Fitna (as Muslims allege), just because their "rise", their flourishment, their surrounding existence, causes Muslims to hate them and fear their baneful influence on the good society?

Lindemann apparently was merely analyzing antisemitism as a doctrine in relation to a real datum -- Jews. That doesn't mean such antisemitism (or any other kind of quasi-antisemitism that cloaks itself in in some kind of rational concern about how "too many" Jews qua Jews are unduly controlling and undermining the West) is correct about Jews, and not rather deranged about them.

So when Lindemann is objecting to the notion that antisemitism is a "fantasy" he means in the sense that it has no real object that arouses its delusion; he doesn't mean it's not deluded about that real object.

What is truly comical is Hesperado's breathless assertion unto the years that Islam is allegedly a threat of world-historical proportions to the West and not merely a collection of low-IQ Third Worlders whose religion gives them a bit more group coherence than they would otherwise possibly enjoy. And as such, a thing which could be easily dispensed with were there the political will. All his other excrutiating verbal gymnastics and tergiversation in the guise of "logic" is squid's ink injected into the debate to conceal from understanding that Jews at least theoretically fall into the same category of out-group aggressor against Europeans as do Muslims of non-European descent.

That is it; cut and dried. It is hardly a thing worthy of respect, the more appropriate response is indeed laughter. Worthy of respect on the other hand, at least I say, would be Hesperado confession of his Jewish ethnic interests.

"Yup, I'm of Jewish descent. I care about Jews. So sue me you Nazi scum!" Would that really be so hard to admit, Hespi?

@ As to the larger weltanschauung to which you subscribe, it's been rebuked and disproved so many times since the Dreyfuss trial… Please, go. This is not the right forum for you. - Taksei

How can the Dreyfus trial and the rest of what you say refute MacDonald’s findings so neatly summarized by Rosalie above? I can go, yes, but the truth of the professor’s findings will remain.

@ Zenster,

OK, the Protocols is a forgery. But you have to understand why it was written. Recently I republished an article of Kerry Bolton where the Protocols is mentioned. It gives you part of the picture of the milieu that created that book. It’s a long article and I cannot summarize it here.

Suffice it to say that, before the rock-solid scientific foundation of MacDonald’s work (again, so well summarized by Rosalie above) desperate nationalists resorted to literary artifice, such as the notorious Protocols. Although I respect the intentions of the author who published it in Russia in 1903, we don’t need conspiracy theories anymore: we got evolutionary biology, studies on survival group strategies, and IQ studies. Even Jewish Larry Auster acknowledges that, because of the Jews’ “talents” (IQ) they tend to become dominant in Western societies, and that this situation “is not healthy”.

That’s the JP in a nutshell as recognized even by a vociferous anti-anti-Semite like Auster.

My problem with Fjordman is not quite the same as my problem with other commenters who take Fjordman's football proposition nation and run with it headlong and enthusiastically toward antisemitic and/or semi-antisemitic explanations for why the West is failing to deal with the problem of Islam.

While Fjordman seems to skirt the issue of whether Jews qua Jews (whether all of them or many of them is immaterial) are "really" behind the "real" problem that is not Islam; he veers too far into conspiracy-theory territory in demonizing those Westerners (however many of these "Elites" there are, it's never clear) as willfully seeking to destroy the West. Such a characterization aptly fits only a tiny minority who may dream of doing it, but won't. The really real problem is the majority in the West (who include millions of non-Leftists of various flavors) who don't want to destroy the West, but who through a concatenation of good virtues and their excess (itself a result of a long and complex historical process) are, effectively (not consciously or willfully) aiding and abetting our enemy, Muslims.

Fjordman, as others, are trying to construct an explanation for why the West is being colossally remiss in noticing the nature and extent of the danger of Muslims; but they err in leaping to a conclusion that by logical implication imputes evil to so many Westerners throughout the West (practically everyone in Government, Academe, Mass Media, Popular Entertainment, the Arts, and... what have I left out?), that it enters Gnostic alienation and fantasy, where the argumentation defending it structurally (and behaviorally) resembles the argumentations of those who are fervently apodictically convinced that the Trade Towers were detonated in time with the plane crashes (or even that the planes never existed). Plenty of "facts" and links are adduced -- a veritable jungle of facts; but somehow, they never touch ground, and never will, because one doesn't need facts to prove a conspiracy so vast any given counter-indicative fact may have been manufactured. It's one thing to connect the ocean of dots that Islam presents to prove its followers are a danger to us; it's quite another to build, feverishly with one's eyes dancing with a mad light, a recreation of the Battle of Waterloo with marzipan.

As Florence Nightingale remarked upon visiting for the first time the field hospital, to which she had been sent to administer, at the site of the Crimean War (even though she had never had that responsibility before):

"I don't know how to run a hospital -- but I know this is not how you run a hospital."

And these various analyses emanating out of the AIM such as Fjordman's and El Ingles's and Conservative Swede's and others are patently not how you answer the question: Why is the West being so colossally remiss in its responsibility to condemn Islam and protect itself from Muslims?

"What is truly comical is Hesperado's breathless assertion unto the years that Islam is allegedly a threat of world-historical proportions..."

I have always said that I am only interested in stopping Muslims from mass-murdering innumerable numbers of us in various ways their obsessive fanaticism will figure out. Since Muslims number over one billion and are spread out in a global diaspora and network as assiduously as ants and have been immigrating into the West in increasing numbers by the millions and have been gaining positions of influence as well as being granted access to too many ordinary areas of life where mayhem is all too easily perpetrated, the problem of stopping them re: my limited concern expressed above requires massive measures.

I do not expect Muslims will ever succeed in doing more than mass-murdering between hundreds of thousands to perhaps millions of us over the coming decades (not to mention untold injured and maimed), as well as causing much regional dislocation, infrastructure damage. They will not be able to conquer the West. But why should we not try to stop them from mass-murdering any number of us?

All this morphing -- upwards, sideways, upside-down -- of the problem into other issues of grandly existential dangers which may or may not be worthy of concern is what I object to. It's distracting us from this particular problem; and it inevitably gets vague and needlessly complex and amorphous.

My position on this may be plotted somewhere between the PC MC stance that considers anti-terrorism a sort of delimited police action having nothing to do with Islam per se; and between the apocalyptic alarms of the likes of many on this thread as elsewhere. It's like a house is beginning to burn, and instead of a rational team of firefighters marshalled, a whole gaggle of different groups from town insist on bringing all various trains of their tangentially related claptrap and hobbyhorses they've been raising at town meetings for years to the scene in order to solve the "real" problem beside the burning house. And, of course, on the other side of this Problem of the Problem, we have an inept team of official firefighters (our various representatives and journalists in the West) who can't even do their job of noticing a burning house, and then trying to save it.

"or any other kind of quasi-antisemitism that cloaks itself in in some kind of rational concern about how "too many" Jews qua Jews are unduly controlling and undermining the West"

If Jews qua Jews did not act in their ethnic interests then the dissolution of the Jewish group would have occurred a long time ago. If Jews wish to survive as a group into the morrow they will continue to do as such. You wish the Jewish people to survive so necessarily you must also wish that they act in their ethnic interests. Moreover, depending on your personal committment to advancing Jewish ethnic interests, *if* it came to it that Jews had to act in a manner detrimental to the peoples native to the West then you would support them in that. A stance which you would obviously not take with regard to European-derived people vis-a-vis Jews.

There is no escaping any of this. You fool no one. So why do you persist?

I thought that you may still be saved from that cult, but I may be mistaken. Hesperado has made valid points precisely within the context of “Proposition Nation” and the attempt of some posters here to link culpability for it solely or even just predominantly to Jews. The facts that belie such allegations transpire daily, yet someone who has a purposed Jew butterfly net installed between his ears will always let those through.

Here is a piece of news from yesterday: “Seattle murder conviction tossed out over 'racist' comments.” This is the Supreme Court of Washington that tossed out the conviction: http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/index.cfm Do you see one Jew there? Or better yet, one “non-Northern European”? Yet, the Supreme Court of Washington, with only Justice Johnson dissenting, just tossed out a conviction for a particularly heinous murder by a black man because the prosecutor queried black witnesses about a street code that prevents blacks from testifying against other blacks.

Such a code exists, e.g. google the title "Don’t Snitch street code is killing black kids". So how can a conviction for murder be tossed out because the prosecutor queried witnesses about what is in fact a feature of reality relevant to the case? Do you realize the implication of that insane judicial decision? Its full weight behind a refusal to let certain non-PC features of reality be acknowledged?

And what is “Proposition Nation” if not a meringue construct built on denial of reality? So please think before you start apportioning blame for "Proposition Nation” or criticizing those who do not subscribe to the Jew-is-our-misfortune [an actual banner that hung in Nuremberg Nazi rallies] theory.

Basically, he defines Judaism as a "group survival strategy" which, combined with the genetic differences between Jews and Europeans plus the high intelligence and high verbal skills of the Jews make them perfect (so to speak) material to subvert the host societies, the main instigators of the "culture of critique".

This is a theory, based upon a vast and complex tissue of facts. It is not a fact. The theory may or may not be true. Secondly, if the theory is true, the danger (and evil -- or at least hostile self-interest functionally tantamount to evil) it may be seen to substantiate about Jews vis-a-vis the danger of Islam -- which is the main problem (the name of this blog does not commemorate a massive assault on a European city by an army of Jews sent from a global center of a Jewish Empire, does it? -- though I have no doubt many in this thread can find the "real" Jewish power controlling the Ottomans at the time) -- is even more tenuous.

@ “and the attempt of some posters here to link culpability for it solely or even just predominantly to Jews.”

You are not even reading the comments in this thread with attention (let alone the academic works cited above). Have you digested what I said above when talking about “a recent Counter-Currents thread on Sam Francis”, or what I said about “O’Meara’s latest book, Toward the White Republic”? In none of those comments is culpability solely placed on the Jews.

Even when I wrote about “resubmitting” Fj’s article with an “elemental correction” I respected the order of the culprits of Western malaise in Fj’s original piece and advised to place the Jews on #3 thus: “If we make a list of groups or institutions that are promoting the dispossession and destruction of Europeans it would look something like this, starting from the top down: (1) The United States government, (2) the European Union, (3) Jews…”

(Actually I would probably place them under #2 — and not behind the US but behind the hypothetical “monster from the Id” I was alluding to in the above-linked Counter-Currents thread.)

It's been fun, y'all. Yet all good things must end. My parting comment will be an argument against Nazism that need not rely on squishy sentimentality. It is simple: those you will encounter on the 'Net who implicitly or explicity advocate for National Socialism are often to a man the type of guy who likes to do his own thinking and has a hard time keeping his mouth shut about it. Just the type of guy who would be the first to be put up against the wall or bundled off to a concentration camp for offering his two pfennigs gainsaying the NS political religion. Clearly individuals who have no earthy grasp of their own self-interest and should be careful what they wish for because their asses just might get it. Friggin' kooks.

"If Jews qua Jews did not act in their ethnic interests then the dissolution of the Jewish group would have occurred a long time ago."

Not all groups who act in their self-interest are dangerous to society. So the logic proceeds:

1) Jews act in their self-interest

ergo

2) Jews are undermining the West and as part of that project are consciously and willfully aiding and abetting Muslims.

All groups have self-interests, obviously. The far more interesting (and pertinent) phenomenon is the one group that persists in shooting itself in the foot, self-interest-wise, Problem-of-Islam-wise: viz., the West. This has, in great part, to do with the fact that the West has nobly sought to transcend tribalism toward universalism. This noble goal, however, sets up a tension against self-interest, and puts the group pursuing it on a paradoxical track where the very same self-interest that cultivates noble transcendence of tribalism becomes threatened, dangerously, by various unapologetically tribalistic groups.

The paradox of Jews rears its head in this, as in many other regards:

1) they are supposed to be dangerous to us becuase of their tribalism

2) they are supposed to be the chief devisers and machinators of the Western paradigm shift away from tribalism to universalism, thus paving the way for our vulnerability to the fiercely tribalistic Muslims (and Jews aren't just doing this out of mistaken good intentions but out of consciously hostile intent to ... be tribalistic -- those fantastically ingenious Jews: inventing and selling Universalism to millions of non-Jewish Western sheep in order to save their own tribe!)

Explain partial culpability placed on the Jews. What does it mean concretely? What is Jewish about it? How does it differ from idiot Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics, Copts, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists (+ a massive etc.) who defend Muslims?

How many Jews are involved? Why are the Jews who are not culpable not involved? Why can't we say that the Jews who are not culpable are that way for Jewish reasons? Why are Jewish reasons only ascribed to the culpable Jews?

Do you realize that a major intellectual in counter-jihad is apparently conscious of the JQ? If Srdja Trifković submitted an article on the JQ would GoV reject it only to avoid a potentially flaming debate (but again, who have behaved more impolitely in this thread, the “dynamic duo” or our opponents)?

It would depend on the piece.

Since a lot of the very finest people I work with in the Counterjihad are Jewish conservatives, it does not align with my strategic interests to create any more flypaper for Jew-haters.

These threads do not change anybody’s mind. They serve no useful purpose, as far as I can tell. People vent at each other for a while, and then the thread peters out, or someone fails to control himself and jumps the perimeter fence, forcing me to close the comments.

I know Srdja Trifkovic well, and he is no Jew-hater. I am delighted to present his material. His history of the Ustasha in Croatia before and during WW2 is unparalleled. The Jews and the Serbs were corralled together and massacred in the extermination camps of Croatia, with the support (and participation) of a number of Catholic priests and bishops. These are historical facts, thoroughly documented, and Srdja’s work on the topic is exhaustive.

For this reason, I have learned to apply what I call the “Serbia Standard” to those who argue about Israel and the Jews. Anyone who supports Israel (as I do) should support Serbia for the same reasons. Like the Jews, the Serbs were victims of an attempted extermination during the Second World War. Like the Jews, the Serbs have been unjustly demonized. Like the Jews, the Serbs are under siege by Islam in their own land.

Those who are gung-ho about the Jews and Israel but refuse to support the Serbs and Serbia (or who actually vilify them) are intellectually inconsistent and incoherent, so their arguments may be justifiably disregarded.

The Jews now have their own state, as do the Serbs. Both nationalities suffer at the hands of those who would damage or destroy them. Therefore the Jews deserve no more special treatment than do the Serbs, and vice versa.

The Serbia Standard a useful way of weeding out disingenuous and hypocritical arguments by those who support Israel. If they fail to support the Serbs, it exposes their special pleading. I presume it could do the same for anyone who treats Serbia in a similar preferential manner.

BTW — for those who focus on ancestry, my own contains no Jewish blood, unless there’s a Yid in the woodpile somewhere that my parents hid from me. I’m a Northern European mongrel —English, Scots, Irish, and German, with just a trace of French blood (of which I am suitably ashamed ;).

So I don’t come to this argument from a position of defending my own. I happen to like most Jews that I have met, but that’s a matter of personal taste, and not the reason for my policy positions.

Supporting both Serbia and Israel is a useful strategy. So is supporting Finland, Latvia, Romania, Italy, Ireland, Australia, Virginia, and many other nations that are bastions of Western traditions.

Okay, Baron, I understand, to an even greater degree than before, why you took the position that you did on this specific subject.

As someone who sincerely believes in the primacy of rational discourse, I'm not yet totally sure of the "radioactive" model put forth by others here but must honestly recognize why their isotopic label is so justifiably applied.

To put it another way:

Neo-Nazi “support” for various White nationalist movements taints justifiable Caucasian ethnocentrism in equal measure with respect to how Islam’s much vaunted “Interfaith Dialogue” is of any use to Jews, not to mention Christians or those of any other legitimate faith.

As with the Nazis ― period or modern day "Neo" ― there is no wholesome way of integrating their doctrine, just as Islam’s dogma is equally inassimilable for any genuine and sustainable Western culture.

Again, dear Baron, sadly, I get it now. I can only hope that both of us experience equal difficulty in bowing to your perfectly justifiable and clear cut wisdom.

Nor I am (recently a Jewess was invited to dinner by some members of my Christian family and of course I behaved). But both Trifkovic and I are conscious of the JQ. In his contribution to the short article “Survival Strategy” Trifkovic wrote:

Quote:

To claim that the traditional Right is “anti-Jewish” is to imply that it is gripped by an irrational prejudice. Such accusation is untrue and unfair. […]

Historically, Talmudic Judaism’s insistence on the Jews’ racial uniqueness — emphasized by the ritual and dietary laws of Talmudic Judaism and on its view of Christians as idolaters — has ensured that a Jew steeped in his own tradition could not view traditional European or American conservatism with sympathy. His tradition was a form of elaborate survival mechanism based on the zero-sum view of a world divided into “us” and “them.” The Gentile was "the Other" ab initio and for ever.

In addition, since the late 1800’s the Jews have had a disproportionate impact on a host of intellectual trends and political movements which have fundamentally altered the civilization of Europe and its overseas offspring in a manner deeply detrimental to the family, nation, culture, racial solidarity, social coherence, tradition, morality and faith. Spontaneously or deliberately, those ideas and movements — Marxism (including neoconservatism as the bastard child of Trotskyism), Freudianism, Frankfurt School cultural criticism, Boasian anthropology, etc. — have eroded “the West” to the point where its demographic and cultural survival is uncertain. The erosion is continuing, allegedly in the name of propositional principles and universal values, and it is pursued with escalating ferocity.

Only one group and one nation-state remain exempt from the dictates of pluralism and diversity, and from the condemnation (heading towards criminalization) of any form of group solidarity based on blood, culture and faith.

The Australian commenter "Blogger" is talking absolute rubbish about Oz multi-culti success and Aboriginal Black/White relations.

I have no idea where he lives but it must be far away from reality. A large area of western Sydney has been given over to various ethnic enclaves - Islamic, Vietnamese, Islander, Indian, Pakistani - which are riven with violence.

He conveniently forgets the ongoing gang rapes in Bankstown by Muslims that came to a head after the media suppression could no longer keep the matters secret.

Sydney has experienced White flight every bit as much as other White nations like the USA.

The population has to submit to Aboriginal grievance/shame industry. Only a couple of years ago we had a national "Sorry Day" to collectively apologise for the "evils" inflicted upon Aboriginals.

I could go on but seriously, he is speaking guff.

Btw, up until the 1970's Australia was so White that we even had a policy maintaining that position. It was called the White Australia policy. Look it up if you are interested.

Essentially, though that policy was dismantled, and cities (mainly Sydney and Melbourne) have been sundered by mass non-White immigration, the country still holds together due to the recent ethnic and religious homogeneity brought about by the White Australia policy.

As our ethnic cohesion diminishes violence will escalate, as it already is doing.

One more btw, Jewish organisations have played a major role in diminishing our ethnic and religious cohesion through the promotion of non-discriminatory immigration and racial and religious vilification laws. This does not mean that "the Jews" are entirely responsible but that do have a major share in the responsibility, as a group.

Recently a man, Brendon O'Connell, was jailed in Western Australia for 3 years for "anti-semitism". Most pedophiles would not get 3 years, nor would those committing acts of violence like assault. This should tell you something about the supposed utopia that the commenter Blogger would portray Oz as.

Most people I grew up with have moved from western Sydney to escape the Islamic violence that the media suppresses (seriously, I can give you many links showing how the leading Sydney broadsheet removes the mention of "Middle Eastern appearance" from crime reports put out by the Police Force). No doubt the commenter Blogger is one of those White people who calls us "Rednecks" or "Bogans" or "Racists!!" while he gets to live in a financially gated community on the city beach suburbs, far away from any of the multi-culti multi-racial nightmare he inflicts and ignores on his fellow Whites.